Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://ecfs.msu.ru/sites/default/files/node/publication/15/10/possible-effects-of-russias-wto-accession-on-agricultural-trade-and-production_2.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Fri Oct 9 14:54:13 2015 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Sat Apr 9 23:41:25 2016 Êîäèðîâêà:

April 2012

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

By Sergey Kiselev Roman Romashkin

Issue Paper No. 40


April 2012

l

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Possible Effects of Russias WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production
By Sergey Kiselev Roman Romashkin

Issue Paper 40


ii

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Published by International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) International Environment House 2 7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 917 8492 Fax: +41 22 917 8093 E-mail: ictsd@ictsd.org Internet: www.ictsd.org Publisher and Director: Programmes Director: Programme Team: Acknowledgments This paper has been produced under the ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development. ICTSD wishes gratefully to acknowledge the support of its core and thematic donors, including: the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA); the Netherlands Directorate-General of Development Cooperation (DGIS); the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Danida; the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway; Australia's AusAID; the Inter American Development Bank (IADB); and Oxfam Novib. ICTSD gratefully acknowledges feedback and suggestions on earlier versions of this study, including detailed comments from Lars Brink, Alan Matthews and Eugenia Serova. For more information about ICTSD's Programme on Agricultural Trade and SustainableDevelopment, visit our website at http://ictsd.net/programmes/agriculture/ ICTSD welcomes feedback and comments on this document. These can be forwarded to Jonathan Hepburn at jhepburn [at] ictsd.ch Citation: Kiselev, Sergey; Roman Romashkin; (2012); Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production; ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development; Issue Paper No. 40; International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development,Geneva, Switzerland, www.ictsd.org. Copyright ICTSD, 2012. Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No-DerivativeWorks 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncnd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflectthe views of ICTSD or the funding institutions. ISSN 1817 356X Ricardo MelÈndez-Ortiz Christophe Bellmann Jonathan Hepburn, Ammad Bahalim, Tyler Blake


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIAS AGRICULTURE
1.1 1.2 1.3 Dynamics of Russias Agriculture Development Production of Main Agricultural Commodities in 2008-2010

iv vi viii ix 1 4
4 4

Market Volumes of Main Agricultural and Food Commodities in 2008-2010 7

2.

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIAS AGRICULTURAL TRADE
2.1 2.2 Russias Agricultural Trade and its Regulation Russias Agricultural and Food Trade

13
13 19

3. 4.

MAJOR PARAMETERS OF RUSSIAS COMMITMENTS IN AGRICULTURE INFLUENCE OF RUSSIAS ACCESSION TO THE WTO ON BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN, AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

32 37 40 42

ENDNOTES REFERENCES

ANNEX I: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIAS AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND MAIN MARKETS OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD COMMODITIES 43 ANNEX II: RUSSIAS AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD TRADE WITH DEVELOPING AND CIS COUNTRIES IN 2010 47 ANNEX III: RUSSIAS AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD IMPORTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 55


iv

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Figure 2. Cumulative indexes of agricultural production in Russia (%) Investments in fixed assets in agriculture and food production industry and their shares in total investments in fixed assets in 2000-2009 Expenditures of Russia's consolidated budget on agriculture and fisheries in 2005-2009 (USD million). Values of production of main agricultural commodities in 2008-2010 (USD million) Shares of main agricultural commodities in gross agricultural production in 2008-2010 (%) Production of main plant products in 2008-2010 (thousand tonnes) Production of main animal products in 2008-2010 (thousand tonnes) Market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008-2010 (USD million) Components of the average market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008-2010 (USD million)

Figure 3.

Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9.

Figure 10. Structure of the average market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008-2010 (%) Figure 11. Foreign trade in agricultural and food products in Russia, 2005-2010 ( USD billion) Figure 12. Growth rates of imports of agricultural and food commodities in Russia, 2005-2010 (%) Figure 13. Components of Russia's meat and meat products supply in 2005-2010 Figure 14. Russia's import of meat and poultry in 2006-2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 15. Components of sugar supply in Russia Figure 16. The structure of Russian trade with developed, developing and CIS countries Figure 17. Russia's agricultural and food trade with developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (USD million) Figure 18. Russia's imports of main agricultural and food commodity groups from developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (USD million) Figure 19. Structure of Russia's imports of main agricultural and food commodity groups from developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (%) Figure 20. Russia's exports of main agricultural and food commodity groups to developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (USD million) Figure 21. Structure of Russia's exports of main agricultural and food commodity groups to developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (%) Figure 22. Russia's cattle and poultry production in slaughter weight (thousand tonnes) Figure 23. Russia's meat imports in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 24. Production of sugar and sugar beets in Russia in 2008-2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 25. Russia's sugar import in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 26. Wine production in Russia in 2000-2009 (million litres)


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

v

Figure 27. Russia's wine import in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (million litres) Figure 28. Russia's imports and domestic production of rice in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 29. Russia's imports of coffee in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 30. Russia's imports of tea in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 31. Russia's imports of fruits in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes) Figure 32. Gross grain harvests in Russia (million tonnes) Figure 33. Russia's grain exports in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010 (thousand tonnes)


vi

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Role of agriculture and food production in Russia's economy Russia's TRQ (volumes and tariff rates) for beef, pork and poultry in 2008-2011 Russian export and sugar imports in 2008-2009 Russia's domestic support (Total AMS) commitments Domestic support for agriculture in Russia, 2006-2008 (USD billion) Simple average tariffs for agricultural and food commodities: applied and bound rates (%) Simple average MFN applied tariffs for different groups of agricultural goods and final bound rates, Russian Federation (%) Tariff rate quotas in Russia's market access commitments Values of Russia's imports of agricultural and food commodities from developing countries in 2010 (million USD)

Table 7.

Table 8. Table 9.

Table 1.1

Investments in fixed assets in agriculture and food production industry and their shares in total investments in fixed assets in 2000-2009 Values of production of main agricultural commodities and their shares in gross agricultural production in 2008-2010

Table 1.2

Table 1.3 Production of main agricultural commodities in 2008-2010 Table 1.4 Market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008-2010 (thousand tonnes) Table 1.5 Supply and utilization of meat and meat products in Russia in 2005-2009 (thousand tonnes) Table 1.6 Russia's meat and poultry import in 2006-2010 (thousand tonnes) Table 1.7 Sugar supply and utilization in Russia in 2007/2008 ­ 2009/2010 (thousand tonnes) Table 1.8 The structure of Russia's trade with developed, developing and CIS countries (%) Table 1.9 Russia's agricultural and food trade with developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (million USD and %) Table 2.1 Russia's imports of agricultural and food commodities from developing and CIS countries in 2010 Table 2.2 Russia's exports of agricultural and food commodities from developing and CIS countries in 2010

Table 3.1 Russia's imports of meat of bovine animals Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Structure of Russia's imports of meat of bovine animals (%) Russia's imports of meat of swine Structure of Russia's imports of meat of swine (%)


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

vii

Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9

Russia's imports of poultry meat Structure of Russia's imports of poultry meat (%) Russia's imports of sugar Structure Russia's imports of sugar (%) Russia's imports of wines

Table 3.10 Structure of Russia's imports of wines (%) Table 3.11 Russia's imports of rice Table 3.12 Structure of Russia's imports of rice (%) Table 3.13 Russia's imports of coffee Table 3.14 Structure of Russia's imports of coffee (%) Table 3.15 Russia's imports of tea Table 3.16 Structure of Russia's imports of tea (%) Table 3.17 Russia's imports of bananas Table 3.18 Structure of Russia's imports of bananas (%) Table 3.19 Russia's imports of citrus Table 3.20 Structure of Russia's imports of citrus (%) Table 3.21 Russia's imports of grape Table 3.22 Structure of Russia's imports of grape (%)


viii

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AMS CIS CU GSP GATT GDP NYMEX SPS measures TRQ WTO Aggregate Measurement of Support Commonwealth of Independent States Custom Union Generalised System of Preferences General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Gross Domestic Product New York Mercantile Exchange Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Tariff Rate Quota World Trade Organisation


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

ix

FOREWORD
The W TO's 8th Ministerial Conference, in December 2011, endorsed Russia's long-standing bid to join the organisation, following the approval of a package of reforms and commitments by the Working Party on Russia's accession one month earlier. Russia is now widely expected to become a fully-fledged W TO member in mid-2012 with domestic ratification functionally completing the accession. Russia had been negotiating to join the global trade body since 1993, making it the largest economy and only G-20 nation still outside the W TO. Its accession is a significant development for the organisation, with the potential to have important ramifications for trade and production both domestically and internationally, including in the agricultural sector. As a major player in both economic and political terms, Russia's entr y into the multilateral trading system has both symbolic and immediate practical significance. Apart from the specific implications for particular products and markets, it is a move which has systemic importance as the countr y commits to engaging with its trading partners under a global framework of rules and processes, as well as to shaping the future evolution of this framework as an active member of the organisation. The agricultural sector is of particular importance to Russia and to its trading partners, as the countr y is both a major exporter and importer of a number of important commodities. As Sergey Kiselev and Roman Romashkin point out in their paper, products such as meat, dair y products and sugar remain sensitive to competition from imports, and Russia's W TO accession may allow developing countr y exporters of these products to benefit from greater access to Russian markets. At the same time, Russia is also an important exporter, in particular for products such as wheat and barley: importing countries could benefit from greater market stability resulting from Russia's commitment to respect W TO rules on export restrictions in this area, for example. Increased market access for some products, such as wine and grapes, are likely to benefit both exporting countries and Russian consumers. This study therefore seeks to provide policy-makers, negotiators and other stakeholders with an impartial, evidence-based assessment of the implications of Russia's accession to the W TO for agricultural trade and production, looking in particular at how developing countries could be affected. It examines how disciplines on market access, domestic support and export competition in Russia's accession agreement could be expected to affect particular products, and looks at what these would mean for specific exporting and importing countries. Finally, the study also explores how the terms of Russia's accession to the W TO could influence agriculture in the countries of the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and their international trade with third countries. Russia's embrace of W TO disciplines and economic prescriptions, together with the commitments it would make to trading partners as inscribed in the Accession Protocol and Working Party Report, will bring about significant reforms in Russia, not least to its agricultural sector. These will also be expected to be fueled and affected by new terms of engagement between the Russian economy and the rest of the world. And the other side of the coin will also be of great significance: how Russia's agriculture under the new terms will have a bearing on the performance of the world's agricultural activity, and more importantly the impact it will have in terms of food security, the ability of those under critical distress to respond to climate change, water shortages and poverty alleviation the world over. This study is a first modest contribution to what should be an informed understanding of these important matters. We hope it is of interest and use in the reader's own work, and look for ward to your comments.

Ricardo MelÈndez-Ortiz Chief Executive, ICTSD


1

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1999, Russia's agricultural production has been growing quite rapidly. The average growth rate of gross agricultural production for 1999-2010 amounted to 2.4 percent per year. In absolute terms, Russia's average annual gross agricultural production reached USD 86.4 billion in 20 08-2010. Grow th in agr icultural production was accompanied by an increase in investment activ ity. Investment was stimulated through the implementation of the National Pr ior ity Project on "Development of the Agro-Industr ial Complex" for the per iod 20 0 6-20 07 and also through the State Program for agr iculture development and regulation of the market s for agr icultural product s, raw mater ials and food for the per iod 20 0 8-2012. The per iod of 20 05-20 0 9 was character ized by a gradual increase in budgetar y suppor t to agr iculture both in absolute terms and as a share of gross agr icultural production. Increases in federal agr icultural suppor t encouraged some regional author ities to focus on suppor t programs that had been developed by the federal government. Russia's grow ing agr icultural and food market s are attractive both for domestic producers and to suppliers from abroad. Consider ing their competitive advantages and the competitiveness of domestic production, Russia's producers are likely to increase production of oilseeds, vegetable oils and grains. The shares of domestic producers in the market s of animal product s (meat and milk) w ill grow only if investment in livestock production goes up, and if there is also a high level of protection against impor t s. Protection w ill also be an impor tant factor in increasing Russia's domestic producers' share of the sugar market. However, Russia remains a net impor ter of agr icultural and food product s. Grow th in agr icultural production has occurred alongside an increase in agro-food impor t s. The product s that are most sensitive to competition from impor t s are meat, dair y product s and raw sugar. Agro-food impor t s or iginating in the CIS countr ies accounted for about 10 percent of all such impor t s in 20 0 8-2010, and the share of non-CIS countr ies was about 90 percent. Russia's regulation of agro-food impor t s took the form of both tar iff and non-tar iff measures in 20 0 8-2010. One of the impor tant non-tar iff measures was the use of forecast balances (quotas) between Russia and Belarus on trade in sugar, meat and meat product s, and milk and dair y product s. Other impor tant measures to restr ict impor t s from non-CIS countr ies are meat tar iff quotas and a floating duty on raw sugar. Russia's agro-food expor t s have been grow ing alongside has become one of the largest suppliers of grain to Russia's main expor t crops. E xpor t s of corn and r ice modernization of the food industr y has contr ibuted t cream and dair y and meat product s. M ore than two destined for non-CIS countr ies. The major impor ters of to Saudi Arabia, Libya geographical proximity Russian expor ters, who Russian wheat are Eg ypt and and Iran. L arge volumes of of these countr ies to Russia benefit from relatively low t the increase in impor t s. Since 20 02, Russia the world market. Wheat and barley are are gradually increasing. In addition, the o increasing Russia's expor t s of beer, ice thirds of Russian agro-food expor t s were

Turkey. L arge supplies of barley are delivered r ice were expor ted to Turkey in 2010. The contr ibutes to the competitive advantage of ranspor tation cost s.

Russia's regulation of grain expor t s depends on the availability of grain in the domestic market. In case of a shor tage of grains, both tar iff and non-tar iff measures have been used to restr ict grain expor t s.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

2

In general, Russia's impor t s of agr icultural and food product s are character ized by a low degree of substitution between goods from developing and from CIS countr ies. This is due to the specific set of commodities being impor ted and the limited capacity of CIS countr ies to meet demand from Russia. Probably, the meat commodity groups exhibit the highest degree of substitution. Developing countr ies dominate over CIS countr ies in Russia's expor t s to developing countr ies accounted for 39 percent expor t s. The share of agr icultural impor t s from developing percent. Meat, sugar, w ine, r ice, tea, coffee, fruit and toba commodities impor ted from developing countr ies. agr icultural of Russia's countr ies t cco are the trade. In 2010, agr icultural total value of agr icultural o Russia was more than 31 main agr icultural and food

Bra zil is the main developing countr y supplier of meat in Russia's market. In 2010, Bra zil represented 60.9 percent of Russia's impor t s of meat of bov ine animals from developing countr ies, and 99.3 percent and 94.6 percent of it s impor t s of sw ine meat and poultr y meat, respectively. Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina are also large suppliers of meat of bov ine animals. All sugar impor t s to Russia from non-CIS countr ies are supplied by developing countr ies. Bra zil is the main sugar supplier. In 2010, Bra zil accounted for 85.8 percent of Russia's sugar impor t s from developing countr ies. The share of developing countr ies in Russia's w ine impor t s from non-CIS countr ies is less than ten percent. The main developing countr y suppliers of w ine to Russia are Chile, Bra zil, South Afr ica and Argentina. Developing countr ies supply almost all impor t s of r ice to Russia from non-CIS countr ies. Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan and China are the main suppliers of r ice to Russia's market. Against the background of grow ing impor t s of coffee, the share of developing countr ies in Russia's coffee impor t s from non-CIS countr ies is declining. Bra zil and Indonesia are the main suppliers of coffee to Russia from developing countr ies. Almost all tea impor t s to Russia come from developing countr ies. Sr i L anka and India are the main suppliers. The supply of tea from China, Vietnam, Kenya and Indonesia has increased significantly. Developing countr ies are the main suppliers of fruit to Russia. Developing countr ies account for 10 0 percent of Russia's banana impor t s from non-CIS countr ies. The share for citrus fruit s is about 90 percent, and for grapes about 8 0 percent. Ecuador is the main supplier of bananas, and a significant share of Russia's citrus impor t s or iginate in Turkey, M orocco, South Afr ica and Eg ypt. The main suppliers of fresh or dr ied grapes are Turkey, Chile and Iran. Countr ies that expor t agr icultural and food commodities to Russia w ill benefit from Russia's accession to the W TO in several ways. They include a reduction in Russia's custom duties; trade facilitation and predictability of Russia's regulation of foreign trade activ ity; and unification and transparenc y of Russia's non-tar iff measures for trade regulation. These benefit s w ill strengthen the competitiveness of impor t s in Russia's domestic agr icultural and food market. A s consumer demand grows, this w ill lead to an increase in Russia's agr icultural and food impor t s. Reduction of some kinds of budgetar y support and restrictions on its use in Russia will reinforce the competitiveness of impor ts of agricultural and food products both from CIS and non-CIS countries.


3

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Russia is committed to using the Customs Union Generalized System of Preferences scheme. Under this scheme, impor t duties on product s eligible for tar iff preferences and or iginating from developing countr ies are 75 percent of the MFN duty rates (zero percent on such product s from least-developed countr ies). For several commodity groups, Russia's commitment s w ill allow substantial increases in trade, pr imar ily in sugar and pork. In the intermediate term, it is possible to expect the competitiveness of Bra zilian pork and raw sugar supply to fur ther strengthen. Accession to the W TO w ill not allow Russia to carr y out it s polic y of substituting relatively low cost beef impor t s w ith domestic beef production. This w ill have a favourable effect on beef expor ters in developing countr ies (Bra zil, Uruguay and Paraguay), and on Russia's consumers. Chile, South Afr ica and Argentina w ill benefit from the significant reduction in Russia's impor t duties on w ine. These countr ies w ill compete against developed countr y expor ters in Russia's market as before. Developing countr ies - the main suppliers of bananas, citrus, coffee and tea - w ill not receive significant benefit s from the reduction of customs duties for these product s, as the current levels of these duties are not high. However, substantial reduction of duties on grapes (from ten to five percent) w ill br ing benefit s for Turkey and Chile. Remov ing va food market suppliers of from non-CIS r ious restr ictions (both tar iff and non-tar iff) on access to Russia's agr icultural and w ill improve the terms of trade for non-CIS countr ies. This w ill contr ibute to some agr icultural and food commodities from CIS countr ies being replaced by expor ters countr ies. (including developing countr ies) may eventually see improvement s not only in market but also in access to the market s of Belarus and Ka zakhstan, Russia's r tners. Some benefit s can also be obtained by developing countr ies through Belarus and Ka zakhstan on the terms of their accession to the W TO and the commitment s to the whole Customs Union area, including Russia's market.

Non-CIS countr ies access to Russia's Customs Union pa negotiations w ith extension of their

Russia's W TO commitment s limit the use of expor t restr ictions or prohibitions to temporar y application only to prevent or relieve cr itical shor tages of foodstuffs in Russia's domestic market. Russia must notify beforehand the W TO Committee on Agr iculture on the nature and duration of the measures to be taken and also consider the interest s of other members of the W TO. These commitment s w ill help developing countr ies to react in a timely way to possible prohibitions or restr ictions of Russia's grain expor t s. Russia's membership in the W TO w ill prov ide significant trade benefit s for developing countr ies. In case of a breach of Russia's obligations, the W TO dispute settlement system can be used to seek redress, an avenue that was not open before Russia acceded to the W TO.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

4

1. MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIA'S AGRICULTURE
1.1 Dynamics of Russia's Agriculture Development Since 1999, Russia's economy has been growing quite rapidly. During the period from 1999 to 2010, the average annual GDP growth rate was 5.4 percent. The cumulative GDP growth for the period following the default of 1998 amounted to 186.7 percent. The favourable economic environment affected Russia's agriculture. The average growth rate of gross agricultural production for 1999-2010 amounted to 2.4 percent per year. During this period a decline in agricultural production was obser ved only in 2010 due to abnormal drought. In 2010 agricultural production declined by 11.3 percent, mainly due to a reduction in crop production by 23.8 percent.

Figure 1. Cumulative indexes of agr icultural production in Russia (%)

So urce: Calculated fro m RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

Crop production is the main contributor to agricultural growth. However, in recent years animal production has grown due to the dynamic development of poultr y and swine production. The following factors contributed to the increase in agricultural production in Russia since 1999: · favourable weather conditions due to the positive influence of climatic changes; · real income growth; · development of the food industr y, generating more demand for farm output; · strengthening the role of vertically integrated companies (agricultural holdings) in Russia's

agricultural market, including their investment activity; · active application of border protection measures (including non-tariff measures); · an increase in budgetar y support for agriculture (availability of soft credit) and use of targeted policies and expenditure programs in the agricultural sector. In the ear ly 20 0 0 s, the attr ac tivene ss of agr iculture for inve stment b e gan to increa s e (s e e figure 2). T his pro cess was supp or te d at the national level through the implementation of the Natio nal Pr ior it y Proje c t o n "D evelo pment of the Agro-Industr ial Co mplex"1 in 20 0 620 07, and al so through the State program for


5

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

agr iculture develo pment and re gulation of the mar ket s for agr icultural product s, raw mater ial s and fo od for the p er iod 20 0 8-2012 2. A s a re sult, agr iculture ha s demonstr ated r at h e r p o s i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t , e v e n i n 2 0 0 9 when the co untr y's GDP de clined (s e e figure

1 and table 1). O ver all in 20 0 9, the share of agr iculture and hunting in Ru ssia's GDP was 3.7 p ercent, while the share of agr icultural productio n in output of go ods and ser v ices am ounted to 3.6 p ercent. T he share of fo od productio n in the co untr y's GDP in 20 0 9 was 2.2 p ercent. 2006 2007 1299.7 2257.7 2008 1669.8 2886.3 2009 1234.2 2182.2

Table 1. Role of agr iculture and food production in Russia's economy3 GDP at market prices (USD billion) Output of goods and services at basic prices (USD billion) Agriculture and hunting - Value added (USD billion) - Output at basic prices (USD billion) The share of agriculture and hunting in country's GDP, % Food production, including beverages - Value added (USD billion) - Output at basic prices (USD billion) The share of food production, including beverages in country's GDP, % Agricultural production in all types of farm units at current prices (USD billion) The share of agricultural production in output of goods and services, % 21.9 72.9 2.2 57.8 3.4 26.8 98.2 2.1 75.5 3.3 34.7 123.2 2.1 99.2 3.4 27.7 103.7 2.2 79.4 3.6 33.7 63.5 3.4 43.6 82.4 3.4 57.0 108.2 3.4 45.8 88.0 3.7 990.0 1700.0

So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d B a nk of Russia d ata

In general, the dynamics of investment activity in agriculture differ from those in the food production industr y (see figure 2 and table 1.1 in annex 1). The share of food production in Russia's total investment in fixed assets reached its maximum values during 2000-2003. In agriculture this figure increased significantly in 2006-2007, during the implementation of the National Priority Project on "Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex", due to increased government support and the availability of credit to agricultural producers. Domestic support is seen by many as an essential factor for the development of the agricultural sector. By now, the Russian Federation has developed a system whereby authority in the field of agricultural support is also given to the regional level. The federal government is responsible for developing and implementing the federal departmental special-purpose programs, providing general conditions for the agricultural

sector through the financing of entities in charge (federal government unitar y enterprises, federal government agencies) and regulating agro-food markets, as well as developing the main directions of agricultural policy. The federal budget subsidies are provided to the regions on a co-financing basis. The co-financing in implementing the federal agricultural policy at the regional level encourages development and strengthens Russia's common agricultural market4. Thus, regional spending on agriculture may be funded from both the regional and federal budgets. When the regional authorities finance and implement support programs with federal funding, they are required to meet certain obligations developed at the federal level. This contributes to making regional expenditures on agriculture accord with federal priorities and guidelines.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

6

Figure 2. Investments in fixed a ssets in agr iculture and food production industr y and their shares in total investments in fixed assets in 20 0 0 -20 09
18 16 5 14 12 bln. USD 10 3 8 6 4 1 2 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 0 2 4 % 6

Inves t ment s in agric ult ure, hunting and fores try (bln. USD) Inves t ment s in food produc t ion, inc luding beverag es and tobac c o (bln. USD) Share of agric ult ure, hunt ing and fores try in total inves tments in fix ed as s ets , % Share of food produc t ion in inves tments in fix ed as s ets , %
So urce: Calculated fro m RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

Figure 3 show s that total ex p enditures of the co ns olidate d budget for agr iculture and fisher ie s increa sed from USD 2.8 billio n in 20 05 (5.7 p ercent of the gross agr icultural productio n) to USD 8.8 billio n in 20 0 9 (11.1 p ercent of gross agr icultural productio n). At the same time, subsidie s from the fe deral budget (inclu ding tr ansfer s to the re gions) increa s e d m ore than five-fold, and subsidie s from re gional budget s doubled. Re gional ex penditures asso ciated w ith the develo pment of agr icultural productio n remain co nsider able. In par ticular, s o me pro gr ams to develo p live sto ck productio n prov ide subsidie s for live sto ck product s entirely from re gional budget s. S everal programs aim to ensure the availabilit y of agr icultur al machiner y, e quipment and

bre e ding sto ck through the develo pment of leasing by means of soft loans to le sse e s or lea sing co mpanie s. In s o me re g io ns, cer tain cate gor ie s of le ss e e s (e.g., pr ivate far mer s) re ceive subsidie s to co mp ensate for 50 p ercent of the initial lease payment. Re gional leasing programs ex ist alo ngside the fe deral leasing pro gram. In addition to leasing, some re gions apply subsidie s to stimulate the ad o ptio n of re s o urce, energ y and water-sav ing te chnolo gies in agr iculture. M ore over, loans o n preferential ter ms and subsidie s for ele c tr ic it y co st s of far m-ir r igatio n statio ns are prov ide d w idely at the re gional level. Al so, to re gulate re gional agr icultur al and fo o d mar ket s, re g io nal author itie s may carr y out pro curement and co mm o dit y inter ventio ns.


7

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Figure 3. E xpenditures of Russia's consolidated bud get on agr iculture and fisher ies in 20 0520 09 (USD million).
10000 9000 8000 7000 mln. USD 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1634 456 690 2005 789 960 2006 2327 1560 2339 1087 2007 2008 2009 2623 3077 3405 3217 3861

2970

Federal budget

Trans fers to the regions from federal budget

Regional budgets

So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d RF Ministr y of Fin a nce d ata

Therefore, the period of 2005-2009 is characterized by a gradual increase in budgetar y support to agriculture, both in absolute terms and in relation to gross agricultural output. Increases in federal agricultural support have encouraged regional authorities to focus on support programs that were developed by the federal government. As a whole, by 2008 all the preconditions for maintaining steady growth in agriculture had been created. However, the potential to maintain this growth depends on numerous factors: macroeconomic stability, availability of longterm and short-term credit, changing consumer demand, state foreign trade policy, agriculture support policy and directions, exchange rate movements, and the evolution of the prices of agricultural commodities, food and inputs used in agricultural production. 1. 2 Production of Main Agricultural Commodities in 2008-2010 Gro ss agr icultur al pro du c tio n amo unte d to USD 8 6.4 billio n in aver age annual ter ms

dur ing 20 0 8-2010 (s e e table 1.2 in annex 1). A substantial share of agr icultural productio n is pro du ce d by ho u s ehold plot s (47.1 p ercent). T his refer s mainly to lab o ur-intensive pro du c t s, su ch as p otato es, ve getables, meat and milk (m ore than 50 p ercent of meat and milk is pro du ce d by ho u s ehold plot s), wo ol (aro und 6 0 p ercent), and eggs (m ore than 25 p ercent). T he share of agr icultural enter pr ises in total agr icultur al pro du c tio n is 45.7 p ercent and that of pr ivate far ms and indiv idual entrepreneurs is 7.5 p ercent. Gr ain productio n co ntr ibute s 16.4 p ercent of Ru ssia's gross agr icultural pro du c tion or USD 14.2 billion on an average annual ba sis (s e e figure s 4 and 5 and table 1.2 in annex 1). Gr ain crops o ccupy ab out 6 0 p ercent of the cultivated land. T he share of gr ain in gross agr icultur al pro du c tio n de cline d in 20 0 9-2010 after it s ma x imum level was reached in 20 0 8, when the gross gr ain har vest am ounted to 10 8.2 millio n to nnes.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

8

Figure 4. Values of production5 of main agr icultural commodities in 20 08-2010 (USD million)
20000 18000 16000 14000 mln. USD 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Grains Oils eeds Sugar beet Beef Pork Poult ry M ilk Eggs 2008 2009 2010 2008-2010 avg So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d B a nk of Russia d ata

Figure 5. Shares of main agr icultural commodities in gross agr icultural production in 20 082010 (%)

20 18 16 14 12 % 10 8 6 4 2 0 Grains Oils eeds Sugar beet 2009 Beef Pork Poult ry M ilk Eggs

2008

2010

2008-2010 avg

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d B a nk of Russia d ata


9

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

T he valu e of productio n in the milk se ctor is ver y substantial, aver ag ing USD 13.5 billio n on an annual ba sis. T he share of milk in gross agr icultur al pro du c tio n is 15.6 p ercent. T he increa se in the valu e of milk productio n in 2010 wa s linke d to the favo urable mar ket env iro nment that prevaile d in that year. Although milk productio n de clined by 1.7 p ercent to 32.0 millio n to nnes in 2010, due to a de crea s e in the numb er of cow s by t wo p ercent, milk y ield p er cow increa sed by 2.5 p ercent or 113 kilo gr ammes (reaching 4 6 0 0 k ilo gr amme s p er cow p er year). T his increa s e is the re sult of br ing ing herds up to date qualitatively, improv ing fe e ding, and te chnical and te chnolo gical moder niz atio n of dair y far ms. T he share pro du c tio n T he share o co nsid ered of meat in is mu ch lower f p or k producti was 9.1 p ercen gross agr icultural than that of milk. o n over the p er iod t (USD 7.9 billio n),

p o ultr y 7.5 p ercent (USD 6.5 billio n), and b e ef 7.2 p ercent (USD 6.2 billio n). T he egg industr y evolve d favo urably over this p er iod. T he share of eggs in gross agr icultural productio n was 4.1 p ercent (USD 3.6 billio n) in 20 0 8-2010. Egg productio n ex panded due to the grow ing numb er of lay ing hens and improve d lay ing abilit y. Egg pro du c tion is m ore profitable than other t y p e s of live sto ck productio n. T he p o ultr y industr y grew the fa stest dur ing the p er iod co nsidered (s e e figure 7 and table 1.3 in annex 1). Po ultr y productio n increa sed by 27.9 p ercent in 2010 co mpare d to 20 0 8. Go o d re sult s were al s o achieve d in p or k productio n. A significant de cline can b e obser ved in crop pro du c tio n fro m 20 0 8, a year w ith unu sually high y ields. Yields in 2010 were ver y low du e to abnor mal dro u ght.

Figure 6. Production of main plant products in 20 08-2010 (thousand tonnes)
120000 100000 ths. tonnes 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Grains 2008
So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

Oils eeds 2009 2010

Sugar beet


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

10

Figure 7. Production of main animal products in 20 08-2010 (thousand tonnes)

35000 30000 25000 ths. tonnes 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Beef Por k 2008
So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

Poul tr y 2009 2010

Mi l k

Eggs

1.3 Market Volumes of Main Agricultural and Food Commodities in 2008-2010 Market volume of a particular agricultural or food commodity was estimated as the sum of the volume of this commodity's marketed output for domestic consumption, and the volume of exports and imports of the same commodity (see figures 8, 9 and 10 and table 1.4 in annex 1).

As expected, plant product markets are of significant volumes. The grain market is the largest one (see figures 8, 9 and 10). The average volume of this market was 57.1 million tonnes during 2008-2010. The share of grain export is about 33 percent in the grain marketed output.

Figure 8. Market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008­2010 (ths.tonnes)
70000 60000 50000 ths. tonnes 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Gr a i ns Suga r beet Milk Suga r Oils eeds Poul tr y Beef Vegeta bl e oi l Por k Eggs

2008

2009

2010

2008-2010 a vg

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata


11

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

E x p or t s al so represent a significant share of the ve getable oil mar ket (19 p ercent). T he aver age mar ket volume of ve getable oil is 3.0 millio n to nne s. In co ntr a st, Ru ssia imp or t s relatively large volumes of oilse e ds. T he share of imp or t in the oil s e e ds mar ket is 14.2 p ercent. T he imp or tance of imp or t s is greate st in the su gar mar ket(29.3 p ercent). T he aver age mar ket volume of su gar is 7.4 millio n to nnes. M eat mar ket s are al so char ac ter ized by high imp or t shares. T he share of imp or t s in the b e ef mar ket is 25.7 p ercent, in the

pork market 25.9 percent and in the poultr y market 23.6 percent. However, meat impor t s, esp e cially p o ultr y meat, are de clining rapidly. T he mar ket volumes of p o ultr y meat, b e ef and p or k are 4.1, 3.1 and 2.8 millio n to nnes re sp e c tively. B oth su gar b e et s and e gg s are no n-tr ad e d co mm o ditie s. T he aver age mar kete d o utp ut of su gar b e et s is 21.5 millio n to nne s and that of eggs is 1.6 millio n to nnes. T he aver age mar ket volume of milk is 19.4 millio n to nnes. B oth imp or t and ex p or t volumes of milk are not significant.

Fi gure 9. Co mponent s of the avera g e market volumes of main a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit ies in 20 08 ­2010 (ths.tonnes)
60000

50000

40000

ths. tonnes

30000

20000

10000

0 Gr a i ns Suga r beet Mi l k Suga r Oi l s eeds Poul tr y Beef Vegeta bl e oi l Por k Eggs

Ma r keted output vol umes for domes ti c c ons umpti on

Expor t vol umes

Impor t vol umes

So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

12

Figure 10. Structure of the average market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008-2010 (%)
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Gr a i ns Suga r beet Mi l k Suga r Oi l s eeds Poul tr y Beef Vegeta bl e oi l Por k Eggs

Ma r keted output vol umes for domes ti c c ons umpti on

Expor t vol umes

Impor t vol umes

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice a n d RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

Russia's grow ing agr icultural and food market s are attractive both for domestic producers and to suppliers from abroad. Consider ing their competitive advantages and the competitiveness of domestic production, Russia's producers are likely to increase production of oilseeds, vegetable oils and grains. The shares of domestic

producers in the market s of animal product s (meat and milk) w ill grow only if investment in livestock production goes up and there is a high level of protection against impor t s. Protection w ill also be an impor tant factor in increasing Russia's domestic producers' share in the sugar market.


13

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

2. MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIA'S AGRICULTURAL TRADE
2.1 Russia's Agricultural Trade and its Regulation 2.1.1 Agr icultural impor t s and their regulation Grow th in agr icultural along w ith an increase The increased impor t s appreciation of the r disposable incomes, incr production occurred of agro-food impor t s. resulted from a real uble, increased real eased domestic pr ices Dur ing 20 0 8-2010, the values of agr icultural and food impor t s reached a record level. The average total value of agr icultural and food impor t s in this per iod was USD 31.8 billion. This is almost 52 percent more than in the preceding three-year per iod of 20 05-20 07. of agr icultural product s, and a limited capacity to meet consumer demand through domestic production.

Figure 11. Foreign trade in agr icultural and food products in Russia, 20 05-2010 ( USD billion)
40 30 20 bln. USD 10 0 2005 -10 -20 -30 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Import of agric ultural and food c ommodities Ex port of agric ultural and food c ommodities Trade balanc e

So urce: RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

W hile agro-fo o d imp or t s increa sed significantly fro m 20 05 to 2010, the r ate of increa s e de clined. In 20 0 8, agro-fo o d imp or t s increa sed by 27.5 p ercent co mpare d w ith the prev io u s year. In 2010, the grow th r ate of imp or t s wa s 18.8 p ercent. T he 2010 increa s e in imp or t s followed a 15 p ercent re ductio n in 20 0 9 due

to a r uble depre c iation and an increa se in demand for domestic product s. In 2010, agrofo od impor t s exce eded their valu e in 20 0 8 and net imp or t s reached USD 25.2 billio n. T he share of imp or t s of agr icultural and fo od product s in Ru ssia's total imp or t s am ounted to 15.5 p ercent.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

14

Fi gure 12 . G row th rates of impor t s of a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit ies in Russia, 20 05 2010 ( %)
35 30 25 20 15 10 % 5 0 2005 -5 -10 -15 -20
So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

T here were no significant change s in the str u c ture of imp or t s by or ig in in 20 0 8-2010. CIS co untr ie s held a share of ab out 10 p ercent of agro-fo o d imp or t s in Ru ssia, while the share of other co untr ie s was ab out 9 0 p ercent. In addition, the share of agr icultural and fo od imp or t s in Ru ssia's total imp or t s ha s increa sed since 20 0 8. T his share was 12.5 p ercent in 20 0 8, 17.6 p ercent in 20 0 9 and 15.5 p ercent in 2010.

M eat imp or t s supply a significant share of the Ru ssian meat mar ket. H owever, the significance of imp or t s in the meat supply is gr adually d e clining a s d o me stic meat pro du c tio n increa ses (s e e figure 13 and table 1.5 in annex 1). T his is due to the implementation of prote c tive mea sure s for meat imp or t re gulatio n and increa sing budget ar y supp or t for meat pro du cer s. T his indicate s a re distr ibutio n of the mar ket in favo ur of Ru ssia's producer s.

Fi gure 13. Co mponent s of Russia's meat and meat produc t s supply in 20 05 -2010
12000 10000 8000 ths. tonnes 6000 30 4000 2000 0 2005 I nitia l s toc ks Impor t The s ha r e of i mpor t i n s uppl y, %
So urce: Calculated fro m RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

70 60 50 40 %

20 10 0 2006 2007 2008 Pr oduc ti on Tota l s uppl y The s ha r e of pr oduc ti on i n s uppl y,% 2009 2010


15

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Russia impor ted meat and meat product s (including poultr y meat) valued at USD 6.4 billion in 20 0 8, or 19.2 percent of total agrofood impor t s. The value of impor t s of meat and meat product s in 20 0 9 decreased by 14.3

percent compared to the prev ious year (to 5.5 billion), and in 2010 fell by a fur ther percent (to USD 4.4 billion). Also the im volumes of meat decreased significantly figure 14 and table 1.6 in annex 1).

USD 20.5 p or t (see

Fi gure 14. Russia's impor t of meat and poultr y in 20 06 -2010 (thous and tonnes)
1800 1600 1400 1200 ths. tonnes 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Poul tr y fr es h a nd fr ozen 2010

Mea t fr es h a nd fr ozen (wi thout poul tr y)
So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

Meat impor t in Ru rate quotas ( TRQ ), and the US. There of TRQ regulation implementation of

s s ia mos ha s in the

is regulated by tar iff tly assigned to the EU been some tightening recent years due to polic y to suppor t the

development of Russia's poultr y and production. In par ticular, the TRQ for p was reduced considerably over the years 11 and the TRQ for pork was reduced in after hav ing been increased in 20 0 9.

sw ine oultr y 20 0 92010,

Ta ble 2 . Russia's T RQ (volumes and t a r if f rates) fo r be ef, pork and poultr y in 20 08-2011 Unit Beef, fresh and chilled Volume of TRQ In-quota rates Out of quota rates ths. tonnes % % 28.9 29.5 30 30 2008 2009 2010 2011

15, but not less than 0.2 euro per kg. 45, but not less than 0.6 euro per kg. 445 40, but not less than 0.53 euro per kg. 450 50, but not less than 1 euro per kg. 530 15, but not less than 0.2 euro per kg. 50, but not less than 1 euro per kg. 50, but not less than 1 euro per kg. 530 15, but not less than 0.2 euro per kg. 50, but not less than 1 euro per kg.

Beef, frozen Volume of TRQ In-quota rates ths. tonnes %

15, but not less than 0.15 euro per kg. 50, but not less than 0.5 euro per kg. 40, but not less than 0.4 euro per kg.

Out of quota rates

%


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

16

Table 2. Contin ued Unit Pork fresh, chilled and frozen Volume of TRQ In-quota rates Out of quota rates ths. tonnes % % 493.5 531.9 472.1 472.1 2008 2009 2010 2011

15, but not less than 0.25 euro per kg. 60, but not less than 1.0 euro per kg. 1211.6 75, but not less than 1.5 euro per kg. 952 75, but not less than 1.5 euro per kg. 780 75, but not less than 1.5 euro per kg. 350

Meat and edible offal of poultry, fresh, chilled and frozen Volume of TRQ In-quota rates Out of quota rates ths. tonnes % %

25, but not less than 0.2 euro per kg. 60, but not less than 0.48 euro per kg. 95, but not less than 0.8 euro per kg. 80, but not less than 0.7 euro per kg. 80, but not less than 0.7 euro per kg.

So urce: Russia's custo ms legislation for 20 0 8 -2011

The growing face of limite and import expansion of

demand for beef in Russia, in the d capacity for domestic production substitution, fuelled the fur ther beef import volumes in 20 08-2011.

protection against imports of certain types of dair y products could be provided in spite of the fall in the value of the euro against the Russian ruble in 2010. Import duties on certain types of tropical oils used in the food industr y instead of milk fat were raised from zero to ten percent of customs value in mid-June 20 09. This was due to the expansion of the milk market. M o s t o f t h e mil k p o wd e r i m p o r t e d b y R u s s ia from the CIS co untr ie s ha s b e en subje c t to a dut y-fre e re gime. In ear ly June 20 0 9, Ru ssia proposed amending the so-calle d fore ca st balance s 6 for milk in order to re str ic t imp or t of milk p owder fro m B elar u s. A s a re sult, the co nsignment s of B elar u sian milk p owder were re duce d (fro m 110 thousand to nnes to 70 tho u s and to nne s), and che e s e and curd co nsignment s were ex pande d (fro m 10 0 thousand to nnes to 132 thousand to nnes). Impor t of sugar is a significant component of Russia's sugar supply (see figure 15 and table 1.7 in annex 1). Sugar is impor ted because domestic production is insufficient.

In the milk market, protective measures were activated as a result of increased imports and falling producer prices of milk in 20 08. The specific component of the compound rate of impor t duty on butter was increased from 0.22 to 0.35 per kilogramme in early 20 09, while the ad valorem rate was kept at 15 percent. The duty on milk powder was increased from 15 to 20 percent of its customs value. At the end of September 20 09, Russia increased the import duties on cheese. In August 2010, the Commission of the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan decided to increase the impor t duty on milk powder to 25 percent of customs value and also the specific component of compound tariffs: milk whey from 0.3 per kilogramme to 0.35 per kilogramme, butter from 0.35 per kilogramme to 0.4 per kilogramme, and cheese (processed and other varieties) from 0.5 per kilogramme to 0.6 per kilogramme. These increases meant that


17

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Fi gure 15. Co mponent s of su gar supply in Russia
8000 7000 50 6000 40 5000 ths. tonnes 4000 3000 20 2000 10 1000 0 2007/2008 I nitia l s toc ks Ra w s uga r i mport Tota l s uppl y The s ha r e of pr oduc ti on i n s uppl y,%
So urce: USDA d ata

60

30 %

0 2008/2009 2009/2010 Suga r pr oduc ti on fr om s uga r beet W hite s uga r impor t The s ha r e of i mpor t i n s uppl y, %

Russia is a net importer of raw sugar. Therefore, government regulation plays a special role in the sugar trade. However, there is a downward trend in raw sugar imports. The raw sugar import volume was 51.8 percent in calendar year 20 09 compared with the volume in 20 08. This drop was caused by the increase in import prices and

by Russia's seasonal duty on raw sugar imports. At the same time, imports of white sugar grew by 56.8 percent. The import of raw sugar in 2010 exceeded the 20 09 volume by 1.7 times (2086.3 thousand tonnes instead of 1,253.3 thousand tonnes). The import of white sugar increased slightly in 2010 compared to 20 09.

Ta ble 3. Russia n ex por t and su gar impor t s in 20 08-20 09 Import 2008 Volume Value thousand thousand. tonnes tonnes million USD Raw sugar White sugar 2419.9 165.1 944.2 87.4 2009 Volume million USD Value 2008 Volume Value Export 2009 Volume Value

thousand thousand thousand. million thousand tonnes tonnes tonnes USD tonnes million million million USD USD USD 507.3 147.3 53.5 25.3 133.7 56.7

1253.3 258.9

So urce: RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

18

Since Januar y 2010, Russia's import duties on raw sugar have been determined by the price fluctuations of raw sugar at the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) in the range of USD 286.60 ­ 396.83 per tonne. When the raw sugar price exceeds the level of USD 396.83 per tonne the import duty is USD 140 per tonne. The import duty increases if prices decline. The maximum value of import duty is USD 270 per tonne. It is used if the price for raw sugar does not exceed the level of USD 286.60 per tonne. A reduced duty on raw sugar is usually applied from 1 May to 31 July. During this period, the import duty amounts to USD 50 per tonne if the raw sugar quota is over USD 485.02 per tonne, with a maximum import duty of USD 250 per tonne ­ applied if the price for raw sugar does not exceed USD 286.6 per tonne. In addition, since May 2010 the period of prices on raw sugar at the been reduced from three months to This has helped to make customs more responsive to changes in sugar market. monitoring NYMEX has one month. regulation the global

exports have been growing alongside the increase in imports (see figure 11). Since 2002, Russia has become one of the largest suppliers of grain to the world market. In addition, the modernization of the food industr y has contributed to increasing Russia's exports of beer, ice cream, dair y and meat products. The value of agro-food exports reached a record high of USD 9.3 billion in 2009. The share of agrofood exports in Russia's total exports was 2.3 percent in 2008-2010. More than two thirds of Russian agro-food exports were destined for nonCIS countries. Grains (mainly wheat) occupy the largest share in the value of Russia's agro-food exports. However, in 2008 and 2010 exports of grain were significantly below the potential volumes due to Russia's application of export restrictions. Prohibitive duties on exports of wheat and meslin (40 percent, but not less than 105 per tonne) and a ban on export to Belarus and Kazakhstan were applied between 1 Februar y and 30 June 2008. Earlier, in November 2007, restrictive duties on exports of barley (30 percent, but not less than 70 per tonne) and on wheat and meslin (ten percent, but not less than 22 per tonne) from Russia to countries other than Belarus and Kazakhstan were established. The problem of supporting grain exports has acquired particular importance due to the record har vest in 2008 and the convergence of domestic and world prices. In late 2008, a discussion was therefore begun on the possibility of subsidizing grain exports, reducing the tariffs (freight rates) on railway transportation and grain handling at ports, and accelerating value-added tax (VAT) refunds for the main grain exporting companies. However, the currency depreciation in late 2008 and early 2009 delayed the introduction of export subsidies. At the same time, there was a double reduction of the tariffs for the railway transportation of grains and products of the milling industr y until 30 June 2009. In 2009, these preferential tariffs were extended until 31 March 2010. Due to abnormal drought and the associated significant decrease in grain yields, Russia

Belarus remains the main supplier of white sugar to Russia. Imports of white sugar are regulated by the agreement between Russia and Belarus. Imports of Belarusian sugar to Russia amounted to 100,000 tonnes in 2008. The agreed amount of sugar imports to Russia increased to 150,000 tonnes per year in 2009 and 2010. The supply of sugar from Belarus was fixed at 200,000 tonnes in 2011. The regulation of agro-food imports therefore relied on both tariff and non-tariff measures in 2008-2010. One of the important non-tariff measures was the coordination of the forecast balances (quotas) between Russia and Belarus for the supply of meat and meat products, milk and dair y products, and sugar. Other important measures used to restrict imports from nonCIS countries were meat tariff quotas and the floating duty on raw sugar. 2.1.2 Agricultural exports and their regulation Russia remains a net importer of agricultural and food products. However, Russia's agro-food


19

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

introduced a ban on exports of wheat and meslin, r ye, barley, maize, and wheat flour from 15 August 2010 to 31 December 2010. In October 2010 the ban on the export of wheat and meslin, r ye, barley, and maize was extended until 30 June 2011. There is therefore a direct interdependence between the policies for grain exports and the availability of grains in the domestic market. At the same time, the support for exports takes the form of discounts on railway transportation of grains. To restrict grain exports Russia has used both tariffs and non-tariff measures (export bans).

developing countr ies and CIS countr ies. The CIS countr ies were separated out because of the special histor ical and economic relations between Russia and these countr ies (Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Ka zakhstan; free trade agreement s between Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Kyrg y z stan, M oldova and Tajikistan). A s figure 16 shows, the share of developing countr ies in the value of Russia's expor t s is over 20 percent and relatively stable. CIS countr ies account for about 15 percent. Developed countr ies represent the main destination for Russia's expor t s in value terms. The share of impor t s from developing countr ies in Russia's total impor t value is increasing steadily. It was 13.1 percent in 20 0 0 and 31.4 percent in 2010. In contrast, the share of impor t s from CIS countr ies decreased from 34.3 percent in 20 0 0 to 13.8 percent in 2010. The share of impor t s from developed countr ies is relatively stable.

2. 2 Russia's Agricultural and Food Trade 2.2.1 General characteristics of Russia's agricultural and food trade Russia's trading par tners have been grouped in three categor ies: developed countr ies,

Fi gure 16. T h e struc ture of Russia n trad e w ith d evelo ped, d evelo pin g and CIS co untr ies

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2005 2009 2010 2000 2005 2009 2010

Expor t Devel oped c ountr i es Devel opi ng c ountr i es

I mpor t CI S c ountr i es

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

Nearly half of Russian exports to and imports from CIS countries are accounted for by Belarus and Kazakhstan (see table 1.8 in annex 1). Developing countries dominate over CIS countries in the value of Russia's agricultural trade

(see figure 17 and table 1.9 in annex 1). In 2010, Russia's agricultural exports to developing countries accounted for 39 percent of the total value of agricultural exports. The share of agricultural imports from developing countries to Russia amounted to more than 31 percent.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

20

Fi gure 17. Russia's a g r icultural and fo od trad e w ith d evelo ped, d evelo pin g and CIS co untr ies in 2010 (USD million)

25000 20000 mln. USD 15000 10000 5000 0 Devel oped c ountr i es Devel opi ng c ountr i es Expor t
So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

Bel a r us

Kazakhs ta n

O ther CI S c ountr i es

Impor t
countries in 2010 were those of fruits and nuts (USD 2,60 4.8 million ), meat (USD 2,228.2 million), sugar (USD 1176.3 million), vegetables (USD 903.2 million), tobacco (USD 666.6 million), and fats and oils (USD 654.4 million) (see figure 18 and table 2.1 in annex 2). Imports from developing countries make up a significant share of Russia's total imports of these commodity groups (see figure 19). For example, imports from developing countries accounted for more than 70 percent of all of Russia's imports of sugar, more than 55 percent for tobacco, and more than 47 percent for fruits and nuts. Also, the developing countries are important suppliers of coffee, tea, mate and spices in Russia's market.

The share of Russia's supplies of agricultural products to the CIS countries accounts for about 36 percent of total expor ts of agricultural and food products. About 20 percent of Russia's agricultural exports was destined for Belarus (7.2 percent) and Kazakhstan (12 percent). The share of agricultural and food imports from CIS countries in Russia's total agricultural and food imports amounts to 17 percent. A substantial share of imports comes from Belarus (7.4 percent). The imports from Kazakhstan are insignificant. In terms of individual commodity groups, the largest values of imports from developing


21

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Fi gure 18. Russia's impor t s of main a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit y g roups fro m d evelo ped, d evelo pin g and CIS co untr ies in 2010 (USD million)

So urce: RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

Ru ssia's imp or t s of dair y pro du c t s, e gg s and honey are char ac ter ize d by the high share (52.3 p ercent) and valu e (USD 1,825.3 millio n) of imp or t s from CIS co untr ie s. B elar u s is the main supplier of dair y product s to Ru ssia. A mong the remaining agr icultural and fo od co mmodit y groups, the main imp or t s from CIS

co untr ie s are those of fr uit s and nut s (USD 8 6 4.3 millio n), meat (USD 719.5 millio n), and b everage s, spir it s and v inegar (USD 495.9 millio n). H owever, the share of imp or t s from the CIS co untr ie s in Ru ssia's imp or t s of these co mm o dit y gro ups is not significant.

Fi gure 19. Struc ture of Russia's impor t s of main a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit y g roups fro m d evelo ped, d evelo pin g and CIS co untr ies in 2010 ( %)

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

22

A co nsider able p or tio n of Ru ssia's imp or t s from the CIS co untr ie s co nsist s of prepar ations of meat, of fish (45.1 p ercent) and product s of the milling industr y (4 0.5 p ercent). A substantial share of imp or t s of these product groups co mes from B elar u s. In gener al, Ru ssia's imp or t s of agr icultur al and fo od product s are therefore char ac ter ize d by a low degre e of substitution b et we en go ods from develo ping and from CIS co untr ie s. T his is du e to the sp e c ific char ac ter istic s of the go ods co ncer ned and the limited capacit y of CIS co untr ie s to me et Ru ssia's demand. T he

meat co mm o dit y gro ups pro bably ex hibit the highest degre e of substitution b et we en CIS and develo ping co untr y or ig ins. Ru ssia's main ex p o r t s of agr icultur al and fo o d product s are ce real s, fish a n d cr us ta cea n s, a n d fat s a n d oils (s e e fig u re s 20 -21 a n d ta b le 2.2 in a n nex 2). Subs ta ntial sh ares of the ex p o r t s of fish a n d cr us ta cea n s (7 7.2 p e rcent) a n d ce real s (6 0.7 p e rcent) are des ti n ed fo r de ve lo pi ng co unt r i e s. T h e bulk of the ex p o r t s of fat s a n d oils (42.9 p e rcent) a n d ot he r co mmoditie s is s u pplied to the CI S co u nt r ie s.

Fi gure 20. Russia's ex por t s of main a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit y g roups to d evelo ped, d evelo pin g and CIS co untr ies in 2010 (USD million)

So urce: RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata


23

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Fi gure 21. Struc ture of Russia's ex por t s of main a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit y g roups to d evelo ped, d evelo pin g and CIS co untr ies in 2010 ( %)

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

2.2.2 Ru ssia's agr icultur al and fo o d imp or t s or ig inating fro m d evelo ping co untr ie s M eat, su gar, w ine, r ice, tea, coffe e, fr uit and to bacco are the main agr icultural and fo od co mm oditie s impor ted from develo ping co untr ie s. Impor t of meat O ver a lo ng p er iod up until 20 0 0, meat productio n and live sto ck numb er s in Ru ssia were de clining. T his wa s du e to s ever al reasons, including the low profitabilit y of meat productio n; a shor tage of mixe d fe ed, and r ising fe ed pr ices; little budget ar y supp or t for meat pro du c tio n in a situatio n of s o c ial and e co no mic cr isis and bu dgetar y defic it; low co mp etitivene ss of d o me stic meat pro du c tio n and large imp or t s of meat and meat product s; low real inco mes and fo od co nsumptio n; an unfavorable e conomic situatio n in agr iculture and a grow ing gap b et we en pr ices for agr icultur al o utp ut and inp ut s.

After 20 0 0, the annual grow th rate of d o me stic meat pro du c tio n aver age d 6.0 p ercent. D epre c iation of the r uble, grow th in co nsumer demand and an increa se in gr ain pro du c tio n create d co mp etitive ad vantage s for Ru ssia's meat pro du cer s. M ore over, industr ie s producing mixe d fe ed and processing meat b e gan to grow. T he s e fac tor s, alo ng w ith the increa se in budgetar y supp or t and b order prote c tion, co ntr ibute d to the re cover y of domestic meat pro ductio n. Rather high r ate s of grow th have b e en obser ved since 20 0 6 after the b e ginning of the implementation of the National Pr ior it y Proje c t o n "D evelo p ment of the A gro-Indu str ial Co mplex". T he measures implemente d by fe deral author itie s include the develo pment of shor t-ter m and lo ng-ter m credit, ap plicatio n o f T R Q o n m e at i m p o r t s , a n d c a n c e l l at i o n o f imp or t dutie s o n e quip ment for the live sto ck indu str y, w hich fac ilitate s larger inve stment s in building, re co nstr u c tio n and m o d er niz atio n of live sto ck enter pr ises.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

24

Fi gure 22 . Russia's cattle and poultr y produc tion in slau g hter weig ht (thous and tonnes)
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 B o vi n e a nimals Sw i n es S h eep a nd go ats Po u l try

So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

T he grow th in meat productio n was acco mpanie d by a substantial increa se in meat imp or t s (s e e figure 23). In 2010, the imp or t s of meat of b ov ine animal s were 4.4 time s higher than in 20 0 0, and imp or t s of sw ine meat were 3.2 times higher. T he tendenc y to imp or t more p o ultr y meat was replace d by a rapid re ductio n in su ch imp or t s after 20 05. A n especially large re ductio n in impor t s of poultr y meat was obser ved in 20 0 9, 2010 and 2011, du e to the imp o sitio n of tr ade re str ic tio ns

(s e e table 2) and tougher re quirement s of a te chnical char ac ter7. T he re ductio n in imp or t s of p o ultr y meat mainly affe cted imp or t s from the US. T he volumes of imp or t s from b oth develo p e d and develo ping non-CIS co untr ie s of the thre e main k inds of meat (b ov ine, s w ine and p o ultr y) were ab out equal in 2010. T he imp or t s of each k ind of meat were a little m ore than 6 0 0,000 to nne s.

Fi gure 23. Russia's meat impor t s in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)
1400 1200 1000 ths. tonnes 800 600 400 200 0 Mea t of bovi ne ani mal s Mea t of s wi ne Mea t of poul tr y Mea t of bovi ne ani mal s Mea t of s wi ne Mea t of poul tr y

Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es 2000 2005

2009

I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es 2010

So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata


25

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

M eat imp or t s from develo ping co untr ie s are char ac ter ize d by the s ame tendenc ie s a s meat impor t s over all. Develo ping co untr ie s have streng thene d their p o sitio ns in Ru ssia's mar ket co nsider ably. In 2010, the share of develo ping co untr ie s in Ru ssia's imp or t s of meat of b ov ine animal s, s w ine, and p o ultr y from non-CIS co untr ie s increa sed to 76.0, 35.3 and 23.2 p ercent, re sp e c tively, fro m 15.8, 8.6, and 2.4 p ercent in 20 0 0 (s e e annex 3, table s 3.1-3.6). Br a z il is the main supplier of meat fro m develo ping co untr ie s in Ru ssia's mar ket. In 2010, the share of Bra z il in Ru ssia's imp or t s of meat of b ov ine animal s, s w ine and p o ultr y from develo ping co untr ie s am ounted to 6 0.9, 9 9.3, and 94.6 p ercent, re sp e c tively. Ur uguay,

Par aguay and A rgentina are al s o large supplier s of meat of b ov ine animal s. Su ga r Impor ts D e spite the over all de cline in su gar productio n (s e e figure 24), the share of su gar pro du ce d fro m su gar b e et s is grow ing. In 20 0 8, the share of su gar pro du ce d fro m su gar b e et s reache d a re cord level of 65.5 p ercent (the remaining 3 4.5 p ercent of su gar wa s pro du ce d fro m r aw su gar). T he r apid grow th of su gar pro du c tio n from domestic raw mater ial s was the re sult of b ord er prote c tio n; increa s e d pro du c tiv it y in the su gar industr y (in 20 0 9, the ex tr ac tion r ate of su gar fro m su gar b e et s reache d a re cord level of 15.0 p ercent); and increa sed su gar b e et acreage.

Fi gure 24. Produc tion of su gar and su gar be et s in Russia in 20 08-2010 (thous and tonnes)

30000 25000 ths. tonnes 20000 15000

70 60 50 40 30 %

10000 5000 0 2008 Suga r beet Suga r pr oduc ed fr om the s uga r beet Suga r pr oduc ed fr om ra w s uga r i mported Sha r e of s uga r pr oduc ed fr om s uga r beet i n tota l vol ume of s uga r , % 2009 2010

20 10 0

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata.

T he grow th in su gar pro du c tio n fro m d o me stic raw mater ial s was acco mpanie d by a substantial re du c tio n in su gar imp or t s (s e e figure 25). T he lowe st volume of su gar imp or t s wa s o bs er ve d

in 20 0 9. T he level of annual su gar imp or t s w ill p o ssibly remain at ab o ut 2.0 millio n to nne s in the near future.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

26

Fi gure 25. Russia's su gar impor t in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)

6000 5000 4000 ths. tonnes 3000 2000 1000 0 2000 2005 2009 2010

Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es
So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es

Almost all raw sugar is imported from developing countries (see annex 3, tables 3.7-3.8). Brazil is the main sugar supplier. In 2010, the share of Brazil in Russia's imports of sugar from developing countries was 85.8 percent. Imports of sugar from Cuba declined substantially, while Guatemala and Argentina strengthened their positions in Russia's sugar market. Wine Impor ts Growth in Russia's wine production was accompanied by a steady increase in wine

impor ts. In 2010, Russia's impor ts of wines (more than 40 0 million litres) were almost 11 times higher than in 20 0 0. The share of developing countries in Russia's wine imports from non-CIS countries is not significant (see annex 3, tables 3.9-3.10). It was less than ten percent in 2010. The main suppliers of wine to Russia from developing countries are Chile, Brazil, South Africa and Argentina.


27

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Fi gure 26. Wine produc tion in Russia in 20 0 0 -20 09 (million litres)

900 800 700 600 mln. liters 500 400 300 200 100 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata.

Fi gure 27. Russia's w ine impor t in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (million litres)

500 450 400 350 mln. litres 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2005 2009 2010 Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es
So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es

Rice Impor ts Rice pro du c tio n in Ru ssia ha s b e en grow ing, acco mpanie d by a substantial re ductio n in

r i ce i m p o r t s r i ce i m p o r t s of the level imp or t s was

(s e e figure 28). T he volume of in 2010 wa s le ss than 6 0 p ercent i n 2 0 0 0. T h e l o w e s t l e v e l o f r i c e obser ved in 20 0 9.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

28

Fi gure 28. Russia's impor t s and d o mestic produc tion of r ice in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)
1200 1000 800 ths. tonnes 600 400 200 0 2000 2005 Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es Domes ti c pr oduc ti on
So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice a n d RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata

2009 2010 I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es

D evelo ping co untr ie s supply almost all the r ice imp or te d by Ru ssia fro m no n- CIS co untr ie s (s e e annex 3, table s 3.11-3.12). Vietnam, T hailand, Pakistan, and China are the main supplier s. E xcept for China, these co untr ie s have all strengthened their p o sitions in Ru ssia's mar ket. Co ffee Impor ts A gr adual increa se in the volumes of coffe e i m p o r te d t o R u s s ia c a n b e o b s e r ve d t h r o u g h-

out 20 0 0 -2010 (s e e figure 29). In 2010, imp or t s of coffe e exce e de d 10 0,0 0 0 to nne s, five time s larger than the imp or t level in 20 0 0. H owever, the share of develo ping co untr ie s in the imp or t s of coffe e to Ru ssia fro m no nCIS co untr ie s ha s fallen (s e e annex 3, tables 3.13-3.14). Bra z il and Indonesia were the main develo ping co untr y supplier s of coffe e to Ru ssia's mar ket in 2010. T he volumes of coffe e imp or te d fro m India de cline d significantly co mpared to those re corded for 20 0 0.

Fi gure 29. Russia's impor t s of co f fe e in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)
120

100

80 ths. tonnes

60

40

20

0 2000 2005 2009 2010

Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es
So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es


29

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Tea Impor t s Imp or t s of tea increa s e d by 24,70 0 to nne s (16.1 p ercent) in 2010 co mpare d to 20 0 0. Alm o st all tea imp or t s co me from develo ping co untr ie s (s e e figure 30 and tables 3.15-3.16 in annex 3). Sr i L anka and India are the main supplier s.

From 20 0 0 to 2010, the share of Sr i L anka in Ru ssia's tea imp or t s from develo ping co untr ie s ro s e fro m 18.6 to 32.4 p ercent, but India's share dropped from 76.5 to 11.7 percent. The supply of tea fro m China, Vietnam, Kenya and Ind o ne sia increa s e d significantly.

Fi gure 30. Russia's impor t s of tea in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)

200 180 160 140 ths. tonnes 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 2005 2009 2010

Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es
So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es

Fr uit Impor ts Imp or t s of var io u s fr uit s to Ru ssia gr adually fro m 20 0 0 to 2010 (s e e f Imp or t s of banana s in 2010 were 2.1 20 0 0 level, citr us fr uit s 3.4 times, a increa s e d igure 31). time s the nd gr ap es

8.2 time s. M o st of the fr uit is imp or te d fro m develo ping co untr ie s (s e e annex 3, tables 3.173.2 2). T he share of develo ping co untr ie s in Ru ssia's total imp or t s of banana s from non-CIS co untr ie s is 10 0 p ercent, in c itr u s fr uit s ab o ut 9 0 p ercent, and in gr ap es ab out 8 0 p ercent.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

30

Fi gure 31. Russia's impor t s of fr uit s in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)
1600 1400 1200 1000 ths. tonnes 800 600 400 200 0 Ba na na s Ci tr us fr ui t Gr a pes Ba na na s Ci tr us fr ui t Gr a pes 2000 2005 2009 2010

Tota l i mpor ts fr om non-CI S c ountr i es
So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

I mpor ts fr om devel opi ng c ounntr i es

Ecuad or is the main supplier of banana s. It acco unts for m ore than 90 p ercent of Ru ssia's imp or t s of banana s fro m develo ping co untr ie s. Ru ssia obtains a significant share of it s citr us impor t s from Turkey (30.5 percent of impor t s from develo ping co untr ie s in 2010), M oro cco (17.8 p ercent), S o uth Afr ica (14.2 p ercent) and Eg ypt (11.7 p ercent). T he main supplier s of gr ap es are Tur key (59.0 p ercent of imp or t s from develo ping co untr ie s in 2010), Chile (17.1 p ercent) and Ir an (10.2 p ercent).

2.2.3 Ru ssia's agr icultur al ex p or t s to d evelo ping co untr ie s Sown area, grain yields and gross output were declining from the early 1990s until the financial crisis of 1998. Subsequent economic growth contributed to an increase in the gross output of grains. Since the beginning of 20 0 0, Russia has transformed itself from being a net importer to a net exporter of grains. In 20 08, Russia had the highest har vest since 1991 (see figure 32).

Fi gure 32 . G ross g rain har vest s in Russia (million tonnes)

So urce: RF Federal State Statistics Ser v ice d ata


31

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

T he develo pment of the gr ain mar ket fo cu ses on prov iding fe ed for the increa sing live sto ck pro ductio n, a s well a s fur ther strengthening the ex por t potential of Ru ssia's agr icultur al s e c t o r i n t h e f a c e o f r i s i n g g l o b a l d e m a n d fo r fo od. Re cord volumes of gr ains were ex p or ted in 20 0 9, amounting to 21.8 millio n to nnes. W heat and barley are Ru ssia's main ex p or t crops, although ex p or t s of cor n and r ice are increa sing. E x p or t s of gr ains were significantly b elow potential ex por t volume s both in 20 08 and 2010, due to Ru ssia's use of ex p or t re str ic tio ns. T his p olic y affe c te d d evelo ping co untr ie s ne gatively by r aising agr icultur al

pr ices and increa sing the gr ain deficit in the wor ld mar ket8. T he major imp or ter s of Ru ssian wheat are Eg ypt (47.1 p ercent of Ru ssia's wheat ex p or t s to develo ping co untr ie s in 2010) and Tur key (14.1 p ercent). L arge supplies of barley are delivere d to Saudi A r abia (38.2 p ercent), Libya (15.5 p ercent) and Ir an (6.4 p ercent). L arge volume s of r ice were ex p or te d to Tur key in 2010 (155,0 0 0 to nne s or 9 6.1 p ercent of Ru ssia's r ice ex p or t s to develo ping co untr ie s). T he ge ographical prox imit y of these co untr ie s to Ru ssia co ntr ibute s to a co mp etitive ad vant age for Ru ssian ex p or ter s, who b enefit from the relatively low tr ansp or tation co st s.

Fi gure 33. Russia's g rain ex por t s in 20 0 0, 20 05, 20 09 and 2010 (thous and tonnes)

18000 16000 14000 12000 ths. tonnes 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 W hea t Bar l ey O at Co r n Ri c e W hea t Bar l ey O at Co r n Ri c e 2000 2005 2009 2010

Tota l expor ts to non-CI S c ountr i es
So urce: Calculation s b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

Expor ts to devel opi ng c ounntr i es


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

32

3. MAJOR PARAMETERS OF RUSSIA'S COMMITMENTS IN AGRICULTURE
T he co mmitment s in agr iculture of co untr ie s that acce de to the W TO fall under thre e `pillar s': d o me stic supp or t, mar ket acce ss and ex p or t subsidie s. Ru ssia's agr icultur al d o me ment s differ from the in t wo major ways. O ne implementation of the agr iculture develo pment stic sup p or t co mmitordinar y standards relate s to Ru ssia's St ate program for and re gulation of the mar ket s for agr icultural product s, raw mater ial s and fo od for the p er iod until 20 20 (" State Pro gr am"). T his is acco mm o date d by a ceiling co mmitment level ( Total A ggre gate M easurement of Supp or t or total A M S) in 2012 and 2013 that exce eds the aver age level of supp or t in thre e re cent year s b efore acce ssio n, followe d by a tr ansitio n p er io d dur ing w hich the co mmitment level de cline s to that thre eyear aver age (s e e table 4).

Ta ble 4. Ru ssia's domest ic su ppor t ( Tot al A M S) co mmitment s Years USD billion 2012 9.0 2013 9.0 2014 8.1 2015 7.2 2016 6.3 2017 5.4 2018 and beyond 4.4

So urce: Sched ule of the Russia n Federation (Part IV - Agricultural pro d ucts: co mmitments limiting su bsidization).

T he co mmitment level of USD 9 billio n in the fir st t wo year s cor re sp o nds to the aver age annual supp or t prov ide d to agr iculture in 19 93-19 95 and also to the p otential level of supp or t to b e prov ide d in 2012 and 2013 under the "State Program" Subsequently, the co mmitment level d e cline s by e qual annual am ount s to the fixe d (b ound) level of USD 4.4 billio n in 2018. T his co mmitment level cor re sp o nds to Ru ssia's annual average total A M S in 20 0 6-20 0 8 (s e e table 5). T his level is le ss than the level of supp or t, measured as total A M S, that was prov ided in 2010 and 2011.

T he s e co nd par ticular it y in Ru ssia's d o me stic supp or t co mmitment s is that dur ing a tr ansition per iod the relationship between productsp e c ific A M S and non-product-sp e cific A M S mu st stay w ithin a cer tain agre e d r ange. In any year, fro m the date of Ru ssia's W TO acce ssio n through 31 D e cemb er 2017, the sum of all product-specific aggregate measurement s of supp or t must not exce ed 30 p ercent of the non-product-specific aggregate measurement o f s u p p o r t. T hi s i s d e s i g n e d t o m e e t t h e intere st s of some W TO M emb er s by r uling out a ma ssive shift from non-product-sp e cific A M S supp or t to product-sp e cific A M S supp or t in the ear ly year s of Ru ssia's memb er ship.

Ta ble 5. Domest ic su ppor t fo r agr iculture in Ru ssia, 20 06 -20 08 (USD billio n) 2006 Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture ("green box") Total AMS support
So urce: JO B/ACC/5

2007 2.0 3.9

2008 2.4 5.7

2006-2008 avg 2.1 4.4

1.8 3.8

An important part of Russia's commitments relate to market access for agricultural goods and food. In general, the average bound tariff rate

for agricultural goods and food should be 10.8 percent. This is 20 percent less than the 2010 protection level of 13.5 percent (see table 6).


33

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Ta ble 6. Simple avera g e t a r if fs fo r a g r icultural and fo od co mmodit ies: applied and bound rate s ( %) Applied rates 2000 Russia* Ukraine Argentina Brazil China* India South Africa 9.9 15.0 15.6 15.9 47.4 5.8 2007 14.6 23.0 10.2 10.3 15.8 34.4 9.2 2008 14.2 13.0 10.3 10.2 15.6 32.2 9.3 2009 13.2 9.7 10.3 10.2 15.6 31.8 8.9 2010 13.5 9.8 10.3 13.7 15.6 31.8 9.0 Final bound rates 10.8 11.0 32.4 35.4 15.7 113.1 39.5

So urce: W TO Tariff Profiles. Notes: Fin al b o un d rates refer to Urugu a y Ro un d co mmitments for Argentin a, B ra zil, In dia a n d So uth Africa, a n d to accession co mmitments for Russia, Ukraine a n d Chin a. * Russia a n d Chin a refer to 20 01 in stea d of 20 0 0

The average final bound tar iff for Russia's agr icultural and food commodities is ver y close to Ukraine's level and much less than those of the major developing countr ies. India has the highest final bound rate (113.1 percent), followed by South Afr ica (39.5 percent), Bra zil (35.4 percent) and Argentina (32.4 percent). China has the lowest final bound rate (15.7 percent), although the applied rate in 2010 (15.6 percent) was ver y close to the bound rate, and was the second highest after India's (31.8 percent). South Afr ica (9.0 percent) and Argentina (10.3 percent) have the lowest applied tar iff rates for agr icultural goods among the developing countr ies in this compar ison. The average final bound tar iff rates of Ukraine and Russia on agr icultural goods are almost the same, and they are both ver y close to the relatively low 2010 average applied rates of South Afr ica and Argentina.

For individual agricultural goods, Russia agreed to cut tariffs to var ying extents. Tariffs will be reduced the most on cereals (by 30.5 percent) and sugar and confectioner y (by 28.5 percent). The smallest tariff cuts will apply to coffee and tea (3.3 percent). Moderate tariff reductions will be applied for dair y products (10.2 percent) and oilseeds, fats and oil (10.6 percent). Tariff cuts will affect various products differently. Sugar is the most sensitive to tariff reductions among the products mentioned here. During the negotiations on Russia's accession to the W TO, it was agreed to cut the upper rate of the floating duty on raw sugar from USD 270 to 250 USD per tonne, if the average monthly price of raw sugar at the NYMEX is below USD 100 per tonne. The minimum rate of the floating duty was left unchanged relative to the current duty rate (USD 140 per tonne). That rate is applied if the average monthly price of raw sugar at the NYMEX exceeds USD 198.4 per tonne.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

34

Ta ble 7. Simple avera g e M FN applied t a r if fs fo r dif ferent g roups of a g r icultural go od s and final bound rates, Russia n Fe d e ration ( %) 2001 Dairy products Cereals Cereals and preparations Oilseeds, fats and oil Coffee and tea Sugar and confectionery 14.9 9.7 7.2 11.1 5.0 2005 16.2 13.1 9.4 11.5 21.9 2010 16.6 13.1 14.2 8.5 9.2 16.5 Final Bound Rate 14.9 9.1 10.5 7.6 8.9 11.8 Tariff reduction percentage 10.2 30.5 26.1 10.6 3.3 28.5

So urce: Calculation s b a sed on tariff profiles a n d custo m tariff of the Russia n Federation, Sched ule of the Russia n Federation (Section I-A).

In addition to changing the pr ice scale for determining the rate of duty on raw sugar, Russia's W TO commitment s change the use of a single pr ice scale throughout the calendar year. Both the main pr ice scale (USD 286.60 ­ 396.83 per tonne, applied from 1 Januar y to 30 A pr il and from 1 August to 31 December ) and the seasonal pr ice scale (USD 286.60 ­ 4 85.82 per tonne, applied from 1 M ay to 31 July) w ill shift to the scale of USD 10 0 ­ 198.4 per tonne. A ssuming a continuation of the relatively high world sugar pr ice of the last couple of years, it would be reasonable to see the minimum rate of duty on raw sugar being applied upon Russia's accession to the W TO. Some W TO Members considered that Russia's system of sugar trade regulation does not comply w ith the rules of the W TO and have reser ved a r ight to pursue this issue through the Dispute Settlement Mechanism. In the Repor t of the Working Par ty the Russian Federation also expressed it s intention to consider reforming the sugar tar iff regime in 2012, w ith a v iew to it s fur ther liberalisation. T he relatively low pre-acce ssio n level of tar iff prote c tion for coffe e and tea (5-10 p ercent) means that these go ods se e the smalle st tar iff re ductio n over the 2013-2016 p er iod. T hese product s are not produced in Ru ssia (except for the productio n of a small volume of tea in

K r asnodar re gion) and Ru ssia ne eds to imp or t them as raw mater ial s for the pro cessing industr y. T he volumes of pro cessed coffe e and tea imp or ted for final co nsumptio n are quite low. Since meat productio n is the most sensitive to imp or t s, TRQs are applie d for b e ef, p or k and p o ultr y meat. TRQs w ill al so b e applie d to re gulate imp or t s of whey product s. A par t from the TRQ for b e ef, Ru ssia w ill amend the tr ade re gime for what is called high qualit y b e ef. Ru ssia co mmitte d to u s e qualit y based definitio ns as used in the US, Canada and A rgentina. At the s ame time, up on acce ssion the ba s e pr ice thre shold for high qualit y b e ef of 8,0 0 0 p er to nne w ill b e subje c t to rev iew according to a me chanism descr ib e d in the note s of Ru ssia's S chedule (S e c tion I - A Tar iffs). Ru ssia w ill ap ply the ver y lib eral in-quota tar iff rate of zero p ercent for p or k. It was al so agre ed that the TRQ for fresh, chille d or frozen pork and for pork tr imming s w ill be eliminate d on 1 Januar y 20 20. M ore over, the tar iff for live sw ine w ill b e re duce d from 4 0 to 5 p ercent. O nce T RQ s have b e en eliminate d, flat ad valorem tar iffs w ill apply for meat s: 27.5 p ercent for b e ef, 25.0 p ercent for p or k, and 37.5 p ercent for p o ultr y meat.


35

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Table 8. Tar iff rate quotas in Russia's market access commitments Products Beef (0201) Beef (0202) Pork (except 0203 29 550 2,0203 29 900 2) Pork trimming (0203 29 550 2,0203 29 900 2) Poultry Meat (0207 14 200,0207 600) Poultry Meat (0207 14 100) Poultry Meat (0207 27) Whey (0404 10 120,0404 10 160)
So urce: Sched ule of the Russia n Federation (Section I-A).

In-quota rate (%) 15 15 0 0 25 25 25 10

Out of quota rate (%) 55 55 65 65 80 80 80 15

Volume of TRQ (tonnes) 40000 530000 400000 30000 250000 100000 14000 15000

Some of the TRQs are allocated to specific countries. This is the case for fresh and chilled beef (the EU and other W TO Members), frozen beef (the EU, the US, Costa Rica and other W TO Members), and boneless poultr y meat (the EU and other W TO Members). In case the quota for a particular product is not filled, the mechanism for re-allocating the remaining volume of the quota among other trading partners has been spelled out. Market access for some other agricultural and food products will become considerably more liberal. For instance, the import duty on wines will be reduced from 20 to 12.5 percent within 45 years. The import duty on cut flowers will be lowered from 15 to 5 percent. Final bound rates for apples, pears and other fresh fruit will go to half, or even less, of their current levels. The application of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) of the Customs Union (CU), or CU GSP, scheme is fixed in the commitments of the Russian Federation. Under the CU GSP scheme, the import duties on products eligible for tariff preferences and originating in developing countries are 75 percent of the MFN duty rates. On such products from least-developed countries the duties are zero percent. Developing (103 countries) and least developed (49 countries) beneficiaries of the CU GSP scheme are listed in the Repor t of the Working Party (its tables 16 and 17). The Report also lists the goods originating in and imported from developing and least-developed countries that are subject to the CU GSP scheme (table 18 of the Report).

The Russian Federation committed to binding export subsidies at zero. Export duties for particular agricultural and food products were cut and fixed. For example, the export duty was reduced from 20 percent to zero on soybeans for sowing and other purposes, from 20 percent to 6.5 percent for sunflower seeds and rape or colza seeds for sowing and other purposes, from 10 percent to zero for mustard seeds, and from 6.5 percent to zero for spirits. A substantial part of the negotiations was devoted to Russia's SPS regime, apart from market access, domestic support and expor t subsidies in agriculture. Russia and the Members of the Working Party on Russia's accession considered the system of state registration certificates, veterinar y certificates, import permits and declarations of conformity. A s a result of these deliberations the Ru Federation made the commitment that, the date of accession, all SPS measures be developed in accordance with the Agreements including the SPS Agreement: ssian from will W TO

"In particular, SPS measures would be applied only to the extent necessar y to protect human, animal, or plant life or health; would be based on scientific principles and, where they exist, on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations; and, would not be more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection applied in the Russian Federation. SPS measures would not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

36

where identical or similar conditions prevail, including between the territory of the Russian Federation and that of other Members. SPS measures would not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade, and would not be

maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in Article 5.7 of the W TO SPS Agreement9". These commitments will facilitate exporters' access to Russia's market.


37

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

4. INFLUENCE OF RUSSIA'S ACCESSION TO THE WTO ON BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN, AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Russia's accession to the W TO and fulfillment of multilateral commitment s in domestic suppor t, market access, sanitar y and phy tosanitar y measures, and technical regulation w ill stimulate increased transparenc y in foreign trade regulation, improve the access of impor t s to Russia's market, and restr ict Russia's possibilities for suppor ting it s agr icultural producers and imposing unjustified measures that impede trade. The countr ies that expor t agr icultural and food commodities to Russia w ill see the follow ing benefit s: reduction of Russia's custom duties; trade facilitation predictability of foreign trade; Russia's regulation of Russia w ill substantially improve trade for developing countr ies. The improved market access applies to commodities that Russia impor t s in large quantities (see table 9): raw sugar, meat of bov ine animals and sw ine, fruit s, tea, coffee and other product s. M oreover, many agr icultural and food commodities are recorded in the Repor t of the Working Par ty on Russia's accession to the W TO as falling w ithin the CU GSP. This applies to meat and edible meat offal; dair y product s; live trees and other plant s; bulbs, root s and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage; edible fruit and nut s; peel of citrus fruit or melons; coffee; tea; mate and spices; and r ice and others. The consequence is that the impor t duties on such product s or iginating in developing countr ies are 25 percent less than the MFN duty applied to impor t s or iginating in developed countr ies. Among the developing countr ies, Bra zil is the main supplier of pork and raw sugar to Russia. If Bra zil maintains it s competitiveness relative to other suppliers, it s expor t s of these goods would benefit in the intermediate term from improved access to Russia's market. Bra zil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina are the main beef expor ters to Russia. With a limit on trade-distor ting suppor t, and w ithout the ability to raise customs duties above bound levels, Russia w ill depend on beef impor t s for a long per iod to come. Accession to the W TO w ill therefore not allow Russia to implement it s polic y of substituting relatively low cost beef impor t s w ith domestic beef production. This w ill have a positive influence on beef expor ters and on Russia's consumers.

-

unification and transparenc y of Russia's nontar iff measures of trade regulation.

Against the background of consumer demand grow th, these benefit s w ill lead to an increase in Russia's agr icultural and food impor t s. It is quite probable that, in response to consumer demand, the increase in impor t s of agr icultural and food commodities w ill exceed the increase in domestic production. This might be the case for animal product s in par ticular. The average level of customs tar iff protection of agr icultural and food commodities in Russia was not high before W TO accession (see table 6). Therefore the improved access to Russia's market w ill not lead to large benefit s for expor ting countr ies. Never theless, for several commodity groups the concessions made by


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

38

Table 9. Values of Russia's impor ts of agr icultural and food commodities from developing countr ies in 2010 (million USD) Agricultural and food commodities Meat of bovine animals Meat of swine Poultry Meat Cut flowers (0603) Nuts (0801,0802) Grapes (0806) Apples, pears and quinces (0808) Coffee (0901) Tea (0902) Rice (1006) Raw Sugar (1701) Countries Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina Brazil Brazil Colombia, Kenya Vietnam, Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, CÒte d'Ivoire, India Turkey, Chile, Iran, South Africa, Afghanistan, Argentina China, Argentina, Chile, South Africa Brazil, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Peru, Colombia, Tanzania Sri-Lanka, India, China, Indonesia, Kenya, Vietnam Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan, China Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Guatemala, Thailand Import values 1561.4 714.5 258.3 102.5 92.9 430.5 230.4 134.6 517.2 100.2 1132.0

So urce: Calculations b a sed on RF Federal Custo ms Ser v ice d ata

Chile, South Afr ica and Argentina w ill benefit from the significant reduction in Russia's impor t duties on w ine. However, these countr ies w ill continue to face competition from developed countr ies in the market. Despite being the main expor ters of bananas, citrus, coffee and tea, developing countr ies w ill not receive significant benefit s from the reduction of customs duties on these product s, as the current levels of duties on them are not high. However, a substantial reduction of duties on grapes (from ten to five percent) w ill br ing benefit s for Turkey and Chile. Russia's accession to the W TO and it s commitment s in domestic suppor t, market access and expor t competition do not directly affect trade w ith Belarus and Ka zakhstan. The rules of trade between Russia and these two countr ies are determined by the treaties and agreement s of the Customs Union. Russia also has free trade agreement s w ith all other CIS countr ies (Ukraine, Armenia, Kyrg y z stan, M oldova and Tajikistan) besides A zerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, governing many aspect s of it s trade w ith these countr ies.

Liberalization of Russia's trade w ith non-CIS countr ies, as a result of the W TO accession, w ill contr ibute to replacing cer tain agr icultural and food suppliers in CIS countr ies w ith expor ters in non-CIS countr ies. Commodities from nonCIS countr ies, including those from developing countr ies, may become more competitive in the Customs Union market. compar ison of the Customs Tar iff of the Customs Union of Belarus, Ka zakhstan and Russia w ith Russia's commitment s under it s W TO accession demonstrates that substantial trade liberalisation w ill take place in Russia. For example, Russia's bound W TO tar iffs on a large number of product s are significantly lower than the current applied rates of the Customs Union. This is the case for pork, milk and cream, cut flowers, grapes, apples and pears, apr icot s, peaches, cherr ies, plums, roasted coffee, tea, r ice, starch, soy beans, olive oil, sausages, raw sugar, caramel, nut s, tropical fruit product s, beer, w ine, modified starches and fatty acids. In general, Russia's removal of restrictions (both tariffs and non-tariff measures) on access to its agricultural and food market when implementing


39

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

its W TO commitments will inevitably lead to the reduction of the customs duties of the Customs Union. As a result, non-CIS countries (including developing countries) will see improvements not only in access to Russia's market but also in access to the Belarus and Kazakhstan markets. Fur thermore, in terms of expor t duties the difference between Russia's commitments in the W TO and the Customs Tariff of the Customs Union implies a need to bring them in line with each other when completing the formal accession process or shortly thereafter. In addition, given that Kazakhstan is a Member of the Customs Union and is at an advanced stage of the W TO accession, it must unify its commitments with those of Russia. This applies to approximately 30 percent of Kazakhstan's customs duties. Developing countries can also foresee benefits from Belarus and Ka zakhstan acceding to the W TO, if the commitment s of Belarus and Ka zakhstan, as Members, would be extended to the Customs Union of Belarus, Ka zakhstan and Russia. A s a result, in negotiating the accessions of Belarus and Ka zakhstan to the W TO, developing countr ies can improve their access to Russia's market. That is an oppor tunity for developing countr ies to receive fur ther benefit s in Russia's agr icultural and food market. However, it would be more logical if Russia's market access commitment s would ser ve as the basis for the commitment s that Ka zakhstan and Belarus make as par t of their own W TO accession negotiations.

Russia's accession to the W TO also affects agriculture in Belarus and Kazakhstan because of the bound limit on non-exempt domestic support for agriculture. Reducing Russia's tradedistorting domestic support and restricting its use will increase the competitiveness of imports of agricultural and food products both from CIS and non-CIS countries. However, many of the CIS countries are already members of the W TO, and their non-exempt domestic support for agriculture is restricted. In acceding to the W TO Russia committed to applying any quantitative export restrictions in accordance with Article XI of the GAT T 1994 and Article 12 of the W TO Agreement on Agriculture. This means that export prohibitions or restrictions can be temporarily applied only to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs in Russia's domestic market. Russia must also beforehand notify the W TO Committee on Agriculture of the nature and duration of the measures taken and consider the interests of other members of the W TO. These commitments will help developing countries react more effectively to possible prohibitions or restrictions on Russia's grain exports. Thus, Russia's membership in the W TO will provide significant trade benefits for developing countries. In the case of violation of Russia's obligations, they can use the W TO dispute settlement system to seek redress, an avenue that was not open before Russia acceded to the W TO.


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

40

ENDNOTES
1 T he National Pr ior it y Proje c t on "D evelopment of the Agro-Industr ial Co mplex" enco mpasses over all thre e major dire ctio ns: the `Accelerate d develo pment of cattle-bre eding', the `Encouragement of the develo pment of smaller institutio nal for ms of e conomic op er atio ns in the agr icultural productio n se ctor', and the `Prov isio n w ith de cent housing for yo ung sp e c ialist s (or, for their families) in the r ural area s'. T he State program for agr iculture develo pment and re gulation of the mar ket s of agr icultural product s, raw mater ial s and fo od for the p er iod 20 0 8-2012 was develo p e d in co nfor mit y w ith the Fe deral L aw "O n Agr iculture D evelo pment". T he Program defines the obje ctives, goal s and the basic dire ctio ns for develo pment of agr iculture and re gulation of agr icultural and fo o d mar ket s, ne ce ss ar y funding, mea sure s for implementatio n and indicator s of their outcomes. H ere and b elow to calcula have b e en used: for 20 0 0 20 03 ­ 30.6 8 Rub/USD, 20 0 20 07 ­ 25.58 Rub/USD, 20 0 T hese rate s were prov ided te amo unt s in USD the follow ing annual averag ­ 28.13 Rub/USD, 20 01 ­ 29.17 Rub/USD, 20 02 4 ­ 28.81 Rub/USD, 20 05 ­ 28.28 Rub/USD, 20 0 6 8 ­ 24.81 Rub/USD, 20 0 9 ­ 31.6 8 Rub/USD, 2010 by the Bank of Ru ssia. e ­ ­ ­ exchange rate s 31.35 Rub/USD, 27.19 Rub/USD, 30.36 Rub/USD.

2

3

4

T he follow ing programs of supp or t are co-financed by the fe deral and re gional budget s: supp or t for live sto ck bre e ding, she ep, reinde er, horse bre e ding, improved se ed productio n, se ed deliver y in nor ther n and mountainous area s of the co untr y, the productio n of fla x and hemp, care for p erennial plant s, the co mp ensation of the co st of acquisitio n of applicatio n of chemical s and cro p insur ance, reimbur s ement of the co st of intere st o n loans o btaine d in the Ru ssian cre dit institutio ns and loans re ceive d in agr icultur al cre dit co nsumer co o p er ative s, the co mp ens ation of damage to agr icultural pro du cer s du e to abnor mal mete orolo g ical co nditio ns, subsidie s on diesel fu el. Here and b elow the valu e of productio n re sult s from the volumes of agr icultural productio n multiplied by the corresp o nding producer pr ices. Fore ca st balances for the deliver ies of fo od product s b et we en Ru ssia and B elar u s are made re gular ly since 19 97. Since 20 0 8, they have b e en for me d for five year p er io ds for milk, meat and su gar. From 1 Januar y 2010, the decision of RF Federal ser vice on customers' rights protection and human well-being sur veillance (Rospotrebnadzor) prohibited the use of solutions containing chlorine above the requirements set for drinking water (0.3-0.5 mg/l) in poultr y processing. A s a result of this decision, poultr y imports from the US stopped completely until September 2010. Fur ther m ore, Ro sp otrebnadzor ha s prohibited the use of frozen p o ultr y meat for the productio n of baby fo od, fo od for pregnant wo men and dietar y product s since 1 Januar y 2010. Al so since 1 Januar y 2011, in the Ru ssian Fe deration the use of frozen p o ultr y meat is for bidden for the productio n of co oled natural semi-finished p o ultr y product s and fo odstuff co ntaining p o ultr y meat w ithout ther mal pro cessing of su ch product s.

5

6

7

8

Mitr a, S. and Josling, T. (20 0 9) "A gr icultural E x p or t Re str ic tio ns: Welfare Implicatio ns and Tr ade Disciplines". Inter natio nal Fo od and Agr icultural Tr ade Polic y Co uncil. Agr icultural and Rural D evelo pment Polic y S er ies. IPC p o sition pap er, Januar y 20 0 9.


41

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Shar ma, R. (2011) "Fo o d E x p or t Re str ic tio ns: Rev iew of the 20 07-2010 E x p er ience and Co nsid er atio ns for Disciplining Re str ic tive M easures". FAO Co mmodit y and Tr ade Polic y Research Wor k ing Pap er No. 32. M ay 2011. http://ict sd.org/d ow nloads/2011/05/shar maex p or t-re str ic tio ns.p df 9 Rep or t of the Wor k ing Par t y on the acce ssio n of the Ru ssian Fe deration to the World Tr ad e Organisation, W T/ACC/RUS/70, W T/M IN(11)/2, p.27 3


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

42

REFERENCES
Customs Statistics of the Russian Federation Foreign Trade, 20 0 0. The R F State Customs Committee. Moscow, 20 01. Customs Statistics of the Russian Federation Foreign Trade, 20 05. The R F Federal Customs Ser v ice. Moscow, 20 06. Customs Statistics of the Russian Federation Foreign Trade, 20 0 9. The R F Federal Customs Ser v ice. Moscow, 2010. Customs Statistics of the Russian Federation Foreign Trade, 2010. The R F Federal Customs Ser v ice. Moscow, 2011. Foreign Agr icultural Ser v ice (FA S), U.S. Dept. of Agr iculture. FA S Production, Supply and Distr ibution Online. Available online: http://w w w.fas.usda.gov/psdonline. The Russian Statistical Year-Book, 20 05. The R F Federal State Statistics Ser v ice. M oscow, 20 0 6. The Russian Statistical Year-Book, 20 0 8. The R F Federal State Statistics Ser v ice. M oscow, 20 0 9. The Russian Statistical Year-Book, 2010. The R F Federal State Statistics Ser v ice. M oscow, 2011. Repor t of the Working Par ty on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization. W T/ACC/RUS/70, W T/MIN(11)/2. W TO, 17 November 2011. Schedule CL X V - The Russian Federation Kiselev, S.V. (20 03). W TO and Russia's Agr iculture. M oscow. Russia. Kr ylatykh, E.N., Strokova, O.G. (20 02). Agr icultural Issues of the CIS Countr ies Accession to the W TO. M oscow. Russia. M atthews, A. "Russian W TO accession by end year?" Available at: http://capreform.eu/russian-w toaccession-by-end-year/. Mitra, S. and Josling, T. (20 0 9) "Agr icultural E xpor t Restr ictions: Welfare Implications and Trade Disciplines". International Food and Agr icultural Trade Polic y Council. Agr icultural and Rural Development Polic y Ser ies. IPC position paper, Januar y 20 0 9. Sharma, R. (2011) "Food E xpor t Restr ictions: Rev iew of the 20 07-2010 E xper ience and Considerations for Disciplining Restr ictive Measures". FAO Commodity and Trade Polic y Research Working Paper No. 32. M ay 2011. Available at: http://ict sd.org/downloads/2011/05/sharma-expor trestr ictions.pdf Tarr, D. (20 0 8) "Russian W TO Accession: Achievement s, Impact s, Challenges". Published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at: http://w w w.oecd. org/dataoecd/28/4/4 0747 249.pdf United States Trade Representative (2011), "US E xpor t Oppor tunities from Russia's Membership in the W TO". Available at: http://w w w.ustr.gov/countr ies-regions/europe-middle-east/russiaand-eurasia/russia-0. William M. Liefer t, Olga Liefer t, and Eugenia Serova "Russia's Transition to M ajor Player in World Agr icultural M arket s". Choices. The M aga zine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues. 2nd Quar ter 20 0 9 / 24(2). Available at: http://w w w.choicesmaga zine.org/maga zine/ar ticle. php?ar ticle=78.


43

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

ANNEX 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIA'S AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND MAIN MARKETS OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD COMMODITIES
Table 1.1 Investments in fixed assets in agriculture and food production industry and their shares in total investments in fixed assets in 2000-2009 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Agriculture, hunting and forestry (USD billion) Food production, including beverages and tobacco (USD billion) Share of agriculture, hunting and forestry in total investments in fixed assets, % Share of food production in investments in fixed assets, % 1.2 2.1 2.6 3.0 4.0 5.0 8.2 13.2 16.1 10.0

1.6

1.7

2.1

2.7

3.2

4.0

4.7

6.6

7.8

5.0

3.0

4.0

4.6

4.1

4.1

3.9

4.8

5.0

4.6

4.0

3.8

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.3

3.1

2.7

2.5

2.2

2.0

Source: RF Federal State Statistics Service data

Table 1.2 Values of production of main agricultural commodities and their shares in gross agricultural production in 2008-2010 Values of production, USD million The shares of values of production of agricultural commodities in gross agricultural production, % 2008 19.9 3.2 1.5 6.6 7.3 6.1 14.9 3.7 36.8 100.0 2009 16.4 3.1 1.5 7.4 9.8 8.0 14.5 4.3 35.1 100.0 2010 12.2 3.9 2.0 7.6 10.6 8.9 17.5 4.5 32.8 100.0 20082010 avg 16.4 3.4 1.6 7.2 9.1 7.5 15.6 4.1 35.0 100.0

2008 Grains (weight after processing) Oilseeds Sugar beet Beef Pork Poultry Milk Eggs Other agricultural products Gross agricultural production 19700 3201 1456 6537 7274 6057 14818 3662 36503 99208

2009 13045 2443 1160 5858 7785 6327 3420

2010 9788 3138 1616 6160 8497 7166 3646

20082010 avg 14177 2927 1411 6185 7852 6517 13484 3576 30255 86384

11541 14093 27838 26423 79417 80527

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal State Statistics Service and Bank of Russia data


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

44

Table 1.3 Production of main agricultural commodities in 2008-2010 Volumes of production, thousand tonnes 2008 Grains (weight after processing) Oilseeds Sugar beet Beef Pork Poultry Milk Eggs 108179.0 8791.7 28995.3 1768.7 2042.1 2216.7 32362.6 2114.3 2009 97111.0 8000.6 24892.0 1740.6 2169.5 2555.1 32570.0 2190.5 2010 60885.3 7140.9 22238.0 1721.5 2321.4 2836.2 32000.0 2261.1 20082010 avg 88725.1 7977.8 25375.1 1743.6 2177.7 2536.0 32310.9 2114.3 The volumes of production in % to prev ious year 2009 89.8 91.0 85.8 98.4 106.2 115.3 100.6 103.6 2010 62.7 89.3 89.3 98.9 107.0 111.0 98.2 103.2 2010 to 2008 56.3 81.2 76.7 97.3 113.7 127.9 98.9 106.9

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal State Statistics Service data

Table 1.4 Market volumes of main agricultural and food commodities in 2008-2010 (thousand tonnes) Marketed output volumes for domestic consumption 2008 Grains (weight 43097.5 after processing) Sugar beet Milk Sugar Oilseeds Poultry Beef Vegetable oil Pork Eggs 24628.4 19054.6 5818.8 5266.7 2684.9 2296.7 1952.07 1823.9 1561.8 2009 2010 20082010 avg 2008 Export volumes 20082010 avg

2009

2010

35550.5 35511.6 38053.2 13593.9 27778.5 13859.6 18410.7 20903.8 19089.3 21540.5 19144.1 19094.9 19097.8 4889.1 6168.5 3126.8 2331.3 2075.2 1602.6 4728.0 5860.4 3529.6 2281.5 2304.9 1669.6 5145.3 5765.2 3113.7 2303.2 2384.0 2068.0 1611.3 49.0 53.8 146.8 2.8 0.1 532.5 0.1 51.4 133.7 334.5 6 0.3 724.3 0.2 28.8 26.6 180.1 18.5 0.1 417.5 0.2 43.1 71.4 220.5 9.1 0.2 558.1 0.2

2547.03 2652.97


45

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Import Volumes 2008 Grains (weight after processing) Sugar beet Milk Sugar Oilseeds Poultry Beef Vegetable oil Pork Eggs
Source: Calculations based on RF Federal State Statistics Service data

Market Volumes 20082010 avg 611.3 2008 2009 2010 20082010 avg

2009 431.3

2010 443.7

959.0

57650.4 63760.3 49814.9 57075.2 24628.4 20903.8 19089.3 21540.5

238.9 2585.0 692.9 1224 872 111.9 822

252.4 1512.2 1071.5 985.9 761 43.4 667

426.5 2374.3 1212.9 688.1 752 114.7 681

305.9 2157.2 992.4 966.0 795.0 90.0 723.3

19342.5 19447.9 19550.2 19446.8 8457.6 6106.4 3911.7 3168.8 2596.5 2646.0 1561.8 6535.0 7574.5 4118.7 3092.6 3314.7 2742.4 1602.6 7128.9 7253.4 4236.2 3033.6 3185.2 2986.1 1669.6 7373.8 6978.1 4088.8 3098.3 3032.1 2791.5 1611.3

Table 1.5 Supply and utilization of meat and meat products in Russia in 2005-2009 (thousand tonnes) 2005 Supply Initial stocks Production (livestock and poultry for slaughter in slaughter weight) Import Total Utilization Industrial consumption Waste Export Household consumption Ending stocks The share of import in supply, % The share of production in supply, %
Source: RF Federal State Statistics Service data

2006 650 5 259 3 175 9 084 52 13 57 8 287 675 35,0 57,9

2007 676 5 790 3 177 9 643 55 16 65 8 774 733 32,9 60,0

2008 733 6 268 3 248 10 249 45 17 90 9 353 744 31,7 61,2

2009 744 6 720 2 919 10 383 41 18 65 9 455 804 28,1 64,7

2010 804 7 167 2 855 10 826 37 19 97 9 871 802 26,4 66,2

592 4 972 3 094 8 658 54 16 67 7 871 650 35,7 57,4

Table 1.6 Russia's meat and poultry import in 2006-2010 (thousand tonnes) 2006 Meat fresh and frozen (without poultry) Poultry fresh and frozen 1411.4 1282.5 2007 1489.5 1294.9 2008 1710.9 1224.0 2009 1437.8 985.9 2010 1441.6 688.0

Source: RF Federal State Statistics Service data


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

46

Table 1.7 Sugar supply and utilization in Russia in 2007/2008 ­ 2009/2010 (thousand tonnes) Marketing years 2007/2008 Supply Initial stocks Sugar production from sugar beet Raw sugar import White sugar import Total supply Utilization Export Consumption Ending stocks Total utilization
Source: USDA data

2008/2009 550 3481 1850 300 6181 200 5500 481 6181

2009/2010 481 3313 2100 280 6174 100 5694 380 6174

440 3200 2800 300 6740 200 5990 550 6740

Table 1.8 The structure of Russia's trade with developed, developing and CIS countries (%) Export 2000 Total including Developed countries Developing countries CIS countries including Belarus Kazakhstan 5.4 2.2 4.4 2.8 5.5 3.0 4.6 2.7 11.0 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 2.2 4.3 2.0 68.0 18.6 13.4 66.4 19.5 14.1 62.5 22.0 15.5 63.5 21.5 15.0 52.6 13.1 34.3 55.9 23.6 20.5 58.7 28.3 13.0 54.8 31.4 13.8 100.0 2005 100.0 2009 100.0 2010 100.0 2000 100.0 Import 2005 100.0 2009 100.0 2010 100.0

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 1.9 Russia's agricultural and food trade with developed, developing and CIS countries in 2010 (million USD and %) mln. USD Export Total including Developed countries Developing countries CIS countries including Belarus Kazakhstan 678.0 1124.3 2688.4 126.7 7.2 12.0 7.4 0.3 2327.2 3657.1 3381.4 18945.4 11352.7 6184.5 24.9 39.0 36.1 51.9 31.1 17.0 9365.7 Import 36482.6 Export 100.0 % Import 100.0

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


47

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

ANNEX 2. RUSSIA'S AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD TRADE WITH DEVELOPING AND CIS COUNTRIES IN 2010
Table 2.1 Russia's imports of agricultural and food commodities from developing and CIS countries in 2010 Com- Description of commodity group modity Total code imports mln. USD Imports from developing countries 0.4 2228.2 375.9 54.5 Imports Imports Imports from from from CIS Belarus Kazakhstan 18.6 719.5 31.5 1825.3 13.5 663.7 12.9 1417.9 0.2 0.1 12.1 2.1

01 02 03 04

Live animals Meat and edible meat offal Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates Dairy products; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons Coffee, tea, mate and spices Cereals Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or medicinal plants; straw and fodder Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their derived products; prepared edible fats; animal or vegetable waxes Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates

333.3 6512.1 2039.9 3493.0

05 06

136.6 759.0

58.0 287.9

3.1 4.5

1.8 1.1

0.0 0.1

07 08 09 10 11

2331.6 5504.2 959.8 248.2 146.5

903.2 2604.8 458.2 76.4 6.4

480.0 864.3 14.4 38.3 59.4

55.9 11.0 0.3 0.7 31.6

42.1 11.2 0.2 30.5 5.7

12

1005.6

365.5

56.6

1.6

1.1

13 14

135.4 2.8

40.1 1.2

0.7 0.2

0.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

15

1369.2

654.4

290.5

10.3

0.0

16

523.5

104.3

235.9

203.1

0.0


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

48

Table 2.1 Continued Com- Description of commodity group modity Total code imports % Imports Imports Imports from from from develoCIS Belarus ping countries 0.1 34.2 18.4 1.6 5.6 11.0 1.5 52.3 4.1 10.2 0.6 40.6 Imports from Kazakhstan 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1

01 02 03 04

Live animals Meat and edible meat offal Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates Dairy products; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons Coffee, tea, mate and spices Cereals Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or medicinal plants; straw and fodder Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their derived products; prepared edible fats; animal or vegetable waxes Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates

100 100 100 100

05 06

100 100

42.4 37.9

2.2 0.6

1.3 0.1

0.0 0.0

07 08 09 10 11

100 100 100 100 100

38.7 47.3 47.7 30.8 4.4

20.6 15.7 1.5 15.4 40.5

2.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 21.6

1.8 0.2 0.0 12.3 3.9

12

100

36.3

5.6

0.2

0.1

13 14

100 100

29.7 41.0

0.5 7.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 0.0

15

100

47.8

21.2

0.8

0.0

16

100

19.9

45.1

38.8

0.0


49

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Table 2.1 Continued Com- Description of commodity group modity Total code imports mln. USD Imports from developing countries 1176.3 137.0 44.2 Imports Imports Imports from from from CIS Belarus Kazakhstan 265.3 386.9 115.3 152.8 20.5 28.9 10.1 3.2 4.8

17 18 19

Sugars and sugar confectionery Cocoa and cocoa preparations Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks' products Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants Miscellaneous edible preparations Beverages, spirits and vinegar Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes

1668.7 1304.6 682.3

20 21 22 23

1401.0 1493.9 2264.2 957.5

543.3 320.9 87.1 158.0

204.3 41.0 495.9 7.5

19.1 13.6 24.2 3.3

0.5 0.1 0.8 0.7

24

1209.1

666.6

43.3

0.1

1.2


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

50

Table 2.1 Continued Com- Description of commodity group modity Total code imports % Imports Imports Imports from from from develoCIS Belarus ping countries 70.5 10.5 6.5 15.9 29.7 16.9 9.2 1.6 4.2 Imports from Kazakhstan 0.6 0.2 0.7

17 18 19

Sugars and sugar confectionery Cocoa and cocoa preparations Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks' products Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants Miscellaneous edible preparations Beverages, spirits and vinegar Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes

100 100 100

20 21 22 23

100 100 100 100

38.8 21.5 3.8 16.5

14.6 2.7 21.9 0.8

1.4 0.9 1.1 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

24

100

55.1

3.6

0.0

0.1

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


51

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Table 2.2 Russia's exports of agricultural and food commodities from developing and CIS countries in 2010 Com- Description of commodity mln. USD modity group Exports to Exports Exports Exports Total code exports developing to CIS to to countries Belarus Kazakhstan 01 02 03 04 Live animals Meat and edible meat offal Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates Dairy products; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons Coffee, tea, mate and spices Cereals Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or medicinal plants; straw and fodder Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their derived products; prepared edible fats; animal or vegetable waxes Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates Sugars and sugar confectionery Cocoa and cocoa preparations 11.1 36.2 2209.4 271.2 2.3 5.1 1705.6 7.5 7.9 9.6 64.3 252.1 2.6 0.6 37.7 30.2 3.7 8.7 14.5 134.1

05 06

23.2 1.8

10.1 0.4

1.6 1.0

1.3 0.0

0.0 0.6

07 08 09 10 11

77.5 37.0 137.7 2419.6 119.7

13.3 5.1 1.2 1467.6 15.8

26.1 17.3 127.7 132.9 67.2

4.1 0.5 46.1 9.4 24.3

10.3 14.7 17.1 14.2 10.9

12

99.3

11.5

18.5

10.5

5.9

13 14

4.7 6.3

0.4 0.5

4.0 0.1

2.3 0.1

1.4 0.0

15

836.2

154.8

359.0

51.7

104.4

16

209.3

3.9

187.2

22.4

108.7

17 18

146.7 390.5

15.5 19.0

111.4 319.1

11.3 44.2

37.8 89.7


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

52

Table 2.2 Continued Com- Description of commodity modity group code % Total exports Exports to developing countries 20.9 14.1 77.2 2.8 Exports to CIS Exports to Belarus 23.7 1.7 1.7 11.1 Exports to Kazakhstan 33.3 23.9 0.7 49.5

01 02 03 04

Live animals Meat and edible meat offal Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates Dairy products; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons Coffee, tea, mate and spices Cereals Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or medicinal plants; straw and fodder Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their derived products; prepared edible fats; animal or vegetable waxes Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates Sugars and sugar confectionery Cocoa and cocoa preparations

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

71.3 26.6 2.9 93.0

05 06

100.0 100.0

43.7 24.3

6.8 55.7

5.5 0.4

0.2 32.0

07 08 09 10 11

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

17.2 13.8 0.8 60.7 13.2

33.7 46.8 92.7 5.5 56.1

5.3 1.5 33.5 0.4 20.3

13.2 39.7 12.4 0.6 9.1

12

100.0

11.6

18.6

10.6

6.0

13 14

100.0 100.0

8.9 7.2

85.1 1.1

48.8 1.1

30.7 0.1

15

100.0

18.5

42.9

6.2

12.5

16

100.0

1.9

89.4

10.7

51.9

17 18

100.0 100.0

10.6 4.9

75.9 81.7

7.7 11.3

25.8 23.0


53

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Table 2.2 Continued Com- Description of commodity modity group code mln. USD Total exports Exports to developing countries 12.5 Exports Exports to CIS to Belarus 362.4 92.0 Exports to Kazakhstan 134.6

19

Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks' products Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants Miscellaneous edible preparations Beverages, spirits and vinegar Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes

414.1

20

150.6

3.2

127.8

48.0

56.8

21 22 23

478.5 460.1 361.5

19.6 20.7 154.7

391.0 289.0 91.7

90.3 78.2 23.7

148.0 94.6 29.2

24

463.3

6.8

412.2

46.7

84.4


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

54

Table 2.2 Continued Com- Description of commodity modity group code % Total exports Exports to developing countries 3.0 Exports to CIS Exports to Belarus 22.2 Exports to Kazakhstan 32.5

19

Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks' products Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants Miscellaneous edible preparations Beverages, spirits and vinegar Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes

100.0

87.5

20

100.0

2.1

84.9

31.9

37.7

21 22 23

100.0 100.0 100.0

4.1 4.5 42.8

81.7 62.8 25.4

18.9 17.0 6.6

30.9 20.6 8.1

24

100.0

1.5

89.0

10.1

18.2

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


55

Table 3.1 Russia's imports of meat of bov ine animals 2000 2005 volume, tonne 140174 331247 68366 47732 25 2634 2888 47 19776.1 165024.7 639508 811633.5 632230 2254989 548597 687345.5 595765 2107252.8 465374 612360 2918.8 8246 17387.8 3594 165418.7 64518 234217.8 77247 1205742.5 283263 976680.8 257298.1 212395.4 85.2 7913.8 10594.4 154.4 1580117.1 2124909.5 484486 33792 114995 value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand 2009 2010 value, t USD volume, value, USD thousand tonne thousand 4670.6 299930 922 51801 596 13645.7 537.8 66254.1 3383 4898.8 376528.6 190849 236745.2

volume, tonne

Argentina

4985

Brazil

Uruguay

1246

Paraguay

China

Mongolia

15322

Mexico

Chile

Imports from deve-loping countries

22149

Total imports from non-CIS members

140011

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.2 Structure of Russia's imports of meat of bov ine animals (%) 2000 volume 22.5 5.6 2.7 69.2 4.7 2.7 69.0 0.5 0.4 1.4 0.8 23.6 value volume 34.8 54.7 0.6 9.4 2005 value 34.4 54.8 0.7 9.6 2009 volume 23.5 55.6 11.5 8.0 value 23.0 57.2 11.1 7.8 2010 volume value 7.3 60.9 16.6 13.9 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 100.0 15.8 100.0 12.0 100.0 85.8 100.0 84.7 100.0 94.2 100.0 93.4 100.0 76.0 7.3 61.8 16.3 13.4 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 100.0 74.4

Argentina

Brazil

Uruguay

Paraguay

China

Mongolia

Mexico

Chile

ANNEX 3. RUSSIA'S AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD IMPORTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


Table 3.3 Russia's imports of meat of swine 2000 volume, tonne 23,0 14636.0 828.0 486.0 1006.0 1482.0 6054.0 2098.0 17124.0 198714.0 197933.4 556426.0 809086.1 649649.0 14944.9 408090.0 601370.5 260051.0 810185.0 1915185.5 6089.9 8604.0 1624.0 226778.0 641584.0 4592.5 719063.3 1922882.7 1634.4 1760.0 2424.1 613.9 1136.0 1857.8 450.0 26.0 59.8 1081.1 420.0 1493.5 12696.6 397826.0 586953.5 257507.0 802541.8 225154.0 100,6 714470.8 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand 2005 2009 2010

Argentina

Brazil

Paraguay

Uruguay

Vietnam

China

South Korea

Chile

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS members

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.4 Structure of Russia's imports of meat of swine (%) 2000 volume 85.5 85.0 97.5 0.2 0.1 5.9 8.7 4.1 10.9 0.3 0.4 1.5 100.0 8.6 100.0 7.6 100.0 73.3 value volume 2005 value 97.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.8 100.0 74.3 100.0 40.0 0.8 100.0 42.3 0.7 100.0 35.3 0.6 100.0 37.4 2009 volume 99.0 0.2 0.0 value 99.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 99.3 2010 volume value 0.0 99.4

Argentina

Brazil

Paraguay

Uruguay

Vietnam

China

South Korea

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Chile

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

56


57

Table 3.5 Russia's imports of poultry meat 2000 volume, tonne 8798.0 15193.0 192.0 448.0 1030.0 16223.0 677288.0 362340.2 1318496.0 847763.6 965071.0 10131.8 253528.0 209673.0 75590.0 704.5 146327.3 1089271.9 150830.0 649812.0 269698.1 862794.2 445.3 356.0 538.8 41.0 62.7 209.5 241.0 781.0 9427.3 244282.0 201373.2 70201.0 138655.9 142742.0 7854.5 4841.0 6923.1 7025.0 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne 2005 2009 2010 value, USD thousand 10130.3 258330.4 235.4 939.3

Argentina

Brazil

Uruguay

Chile

Paraguay

Turkey

China

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS members

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.6 Structure of Russia's imports of poultry meat (%) 2000 volume 93.7 93.0 value volume 3.5 96.4 2005 value 3.7 96.0 6.4 92.9 0.3 0.2 6.3 100.0 2.4 7.0 100.0 2.8 100.0 19.2 100.0 24.7 100.0 7.8 100.0 13.4 100.0 23.2 100.0 31.3 0.2 0.5 2009 volume value 4.7 94.8 0.1 0.4 4.7 94.6 0.2 0.5 2010 volume value 3.8 95.8 0.1 0.3

Argentina

Brazil

Uruguay

Chile

Paraguay

Turkey

China

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


Table 3.7 Russia's imports of sugar 2000 volume, tonne 61.0 1828.2 2042.9 25.5 279.3 260.3 2.0 260.3 4734.0 4816.7 764.3 2968.1 767.2 1312.4 726.9 2724.9 701.5 1188.3 457.9 539.5 44.0 57.8 14.2 10.7 7.2 0.7 14.2 3.5 44.0 46.0 12.2 0.1 0.1 42.5 45.9 12.1 30.0 20.9 30.4 17.9 70.2 10.7 2089.8 2155.2 302.6 185.2 47.5 142.8 53.2 80.9 279.8 2365.8 609.5 1004.8 376.5 1793.2 13.1 10.0 2.5 61.1 42.0 996.7 41.8 11.0 19.3 7.6 32.1 6.9 1157.6 1209.8 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand 2005 2009 2010

Argentina

Brazil

Cuba

Peru

Thailand

Costa Rica

Guatemala

Colombia

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.8 Structure Russia's imports of sugar (%) 2000 volume 1.3 38.6 43.2 5.9 5.5 0.0 5.5 100.0 98.3 5.8 6.1 0.1 6.1 100.0 95.1 41.6 38.5 1.8 0.4 86.8 6.8 1.7 1.7 0.5 2.1 100.0 91.8 value volume 2005 value 0.4 86.9 6.8 1.7 1.7 0.5 2.0 100.0 91.4 0.9 100.0 90.5 1.6 100.0 84.9 84.6 12.0 2.5 82.2 11.6 4.6 2009 volume value 2.9 85.8 3.9 1.2 1.5 0.9 3.4 0.5 100.0 97.0 2010 volume value 3.6 86.1 3.6 1.0 1.7 0.7 2.8 0.6 100.0 95.7

Argentina

Brazil

Cuba

Peru

Thailand

Costa Rica

Guatemala

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Colombia

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

58


59

Table 3.9 Russia's imports of wines 2000 volume, tonne 380010 177600 20330 288760 3051630 3720400 30871820 51088.7 253223940 292986.5 356803785 533407.8 2415.8 36023480 36765 81438672 83430.8 1123.5 1168240 2751.1 5800017 7497.6 743.3 7703800 16020 15775337 33899.6 61 842037 707.5 963531 15151063 8720782 40659097 432419737 113.3 25119612 13353.9 9536170 549.0 26953510 17819.6 33901669 27972.2 6287551 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne 2005 2009 2010 value, USD thousand 10572.2 5141.1 838.8 41389.4 11532.2 69473.7 700819.8

Argentina

Brazil

Uruguay

Chile

South Africa

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.10 Structure of Russia's imports of wines (%) 2000 volume 10.2 0.5 0.1 7.8 82.0 100.0 12.1 46.5 100.0 4.7 30.8 21.4 3.2 100.0 14.2 22.7 74.8 value volume 2005 value 48.5 0.3 0.2 43.6 7.5 100.0 12.5 41.6 30.8 1.0 19.4 7.1 100.0 22.8 2009 volume value 33.5 16.0 0.8 40.6 9.0 100.0 15.6 2010 volume 15.5 23.5 2.4 37.3 21.4 100.0 9.4 value 15.2 7.4 1.2 59.6 16.6 100.0 9.9

Argentina

Brazil

Uruguay

Chile

South Africa

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


Table 3.11 Russia's imports of rice 2000 volume, tonne 10535 47228 218227 497 51436 8667 13746 9338 3130 331053 347566 68488,9 336530 85572,6 254942 61169,8 324397 81165,7 250804 863,2 420 345,2 133381,3 139811,2 199299 214484 107401 121465,7 5927,5 8492,8 2759,9 596 544 600 8326 550 1512 14580,2 22214 6635,7 108 168,5 24137 6467,2 17958 9829,8 46838 36031,6 128237 29171,4 42549 17766,6 15921 6608,9 82687 17038,5 92418 42628,4 74542 34194,3 7223,9 25993,1 160,7 473,3 5363,7 374,2 793,5 2917,4 58455 19093 73779 47847 50902 32824,3 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand 2005 2009 2010

Thailand

Viet Nam

China

Pakistan

India

Egypt

Uruguay

Brazil

Cambodia

Argentina

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.12 Structure of Russia's imports of rice (%) 2000 volume 3.2 14.3 65.9 0.2 15.5 58.9 0.3 23.8 10.8 4.8 value 18.0 25.5 39.5 7.4 6.8 2.7 2005 volume value 23.5 21.0 35.9 8.0 8.2 3.4 29.4 36.8 17.0 7.2 0.0 0.2 5.5 3.7 0.9 100.0 95.2 1.4 100.0 89.3 100.0 96.4 100.0 94.9 0.2 100.0 98.4 2009 volume value 35.9 32.0 13.3 7.4 0.0 0.4 6.4 4.4 0.3 100.0 95.4 100.0 92.9 100.0 88.4 2010 volume 25.5 37.4 8.0 23.5 0.1 0.3 4.2 0.3 0.8 value 30.6 31.8 6.7 24.2 0.1 0.4 5.0 0.3 0.7

Thailand

Viet Nam

China

Pakistan

India

Egypt

Uruguay

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Brazil

Cambodia

Argentina

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

60


61

Table 3.13 Russia's imports of coffee 2000 volume, tonne 1326 9177 1803 45 232 91 90 47 98 99 38 270 114 13193 20274 30874.8 39256 70077.8 118992.8 20892 26241 175.6 1260 2531.8 434.2 1308 1477.5 40.3 4964 3081.1 2547 2759 1884 54369 88808 213.4 1111 103.8 772 1335.3 708 2253 4378.7 6626.8 5205.9 5176.4 124395.5 244686.1 95.6 218 432.6 712 1884.2 302.6 122.9 188 735.9 352.9 1653 3548.4 2687 9246.8 78 44 100.1 448 1376.4 829 1194 327 1715 59 646 1650 1585 2894 2591 51008 101784 2733.5 2916 3337.2 19057 31452.3 9486 113940.1 3815 3127.6 1252 3007 1738 1038.8 3752 6933.1 20969 52749.5 26294 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne 2005 2009 2010 value, USD thousand 88664.1 4457.4 19307.3 3070.2 5558.4 1334.2 4455.8 398.1 2721.6 7126.6 5222.7 7060 8706.6 158083 330758.7

Brazil

India

Indonesia

Mexico

Colombia

Kenya

Cameroon

Cuba

Nicaragua

Peru

Tanzania

Uganda

Ethiopia

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


Table 3.14 Structure of Russia's imports of coffee (%) 2000 volume 10.1 69.6 13.7 0.3 1.8 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 2.0 0.9 100.0 65.1 385.4 53.2 100.0 100.0 0.1 6.0 9.6 100.0 37.4 0.4 6.3 5.6 0.0 23.8 11.7 0.8 2.0 4.7 5.1 3.5 100.0 61.2 0.1 3.7 5.1 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.5 0.2 1.8 3.5 5.3 4.2 4.2 100.0 50.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 7.9 13.5 4.9 7.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.3 0.6 3.4 0.1 1.3 3.2 3.1 5.7 5.1 100.0 50.1 2.3 14.0 12.7 35.1 25.3 18.6 95.8 18.3 11.9 2.3 2.4 3.4 0.9 18.0 26.4 38.6 42.4 51.5 56.1 2.8 12.2 1.9 3.5 0.8 2.8 0.3 1.7 4.5 3.3 4.5 5.5 100.0 47.8 value volume value volume value volume value 2005 2009 2010

Brazil

India

Indonesia

Mexico

Colombia

Kenya

Cameroon

Cuba

Nicaragua

Peru

Tanzania

Uganda

Ethiopia

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

62


63

Table 3.15 Russia's imports of tea 2000 volume, tonne 2896 113468 3824 27654 96 446 85 86 148384 153088 220169.7 176492 309404.8 179948 212550.5 165663 274867.4 172419 142.8 150.7 469576.1 496155.4 167657 177773 517479.9 554757.8 464.2 10193 9261.5 20099 27619.8 162.7 13337 24398.2 15033 40595 39757.3 70668 149978.1 54257 215105.9 4321 20351 24964.7 18462 36245.5 13454 54404 14755 19218 161 164757.4 36176 49719.3 45788 113259.9 46011 3087.9 14938 16545.6 18609 36456.5 19654 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne 2005 2009 2010 value, USD thousand 48132.4 124624 30141.5 239655.3 44871.4 29804.4 250.9

China

India

Indonesia

Sri Lanka

Kenya

Viet Nam

Argentina

Brazil

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.16 Structure of Russia's imports of tea (%) 2000 volume 2.0 76.5 2.6 18.6 0.1 0.3 77.5 2.0 18.7 0.1 0.2 1.5 value 9.0 21.8 12.3 42.7 8.1 6.2 2005 volume value 6.0 18.1 9.1 54.6 8.9 3.4 10.8 26.6 10.7 31.5 8.7 11.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 96.9 100.0 96.5 100.0 93.9 100.0 88.8 100.0 95.8 2009 volume value 7.8 24.1 7.7 45.8 8.6 5.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 94.6 100.0 94.3 100.0 93.3 2010 volume 11.7 27.4 8.0 32.4 8.8 11.5 0.1 value 9.3 24.1 5.8 46.3 8.7 5.8 0.0

China

India

Indonesia

Sri Lanka

Kenya

Viet Nam

Argentina

Brazil

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


Table 3.17 Russia's imports of bananas 2000 volume, tonne 166 2507 754 22771 4200 2559 442890 2921 15738 491781 502925 175040.7 864876 451054.6 980896 170676.6 862934 450012.7 980809 5474.3 3948 2092.6 384 378.3 630357.3 630447.3 1068368 1068571 703886 704129.2 1146.4 21190 11102.9 24515 16119 154321.7 791057 412088.8 911208 584342.9 1720.9 1455.9 15468 8221.8 32617 21443.2 48212 1140 976560 29831 7501.9 28005 14767.8 5212 3441.2 9500 375.5 2284 1380.7 4052 2564.4 2575 400.9 982 358.1 262 347.4 384 110,1 533.2 1719.5 6329.1 32907.9 738.3 642092 19455.9 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand 2005 2009 2010

Brazil

Viet Nam

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Mexico

Ecuador

Philippines

Panama

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.18 Structure of Russia's imports of bananas (%) 2000 volume 0.5 0.2 4.6 0.9 90.1 0.6 3.2 100.0 97.8 0.2 4.4 0.9 90.4 0.7 3.2 100.0 97.5 0.2 value 2005 volume 0.1 0.3 3.2 1.8 91.7 2.5 0.5 100.0 99.8 value 0.1 0.3 3.3 1.8 91.6 2.5 0.5 100.0 99.8 2009 volume 0.0 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.3 92.9 2.5 0.0 100.0 100.0 value 0.1 0.4 0.5 3.4 0.3 92.7 2.6 0.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 4.5 0.1 91.4 2.8 2010 volume value 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 4.7 0.1 91.2 2.8

Brazil

Viet Nam

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Mexico

Ecuador

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Philippines

Panama

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

64


65

Table 3.19 Russia's imports of citrus 2000 volume, tonne 42011 3900 456 19991 165841 39 83381 15883 27130 358632 439373 124894 902407 466715.5 1267217 100964.8 838723 431767.8 1126086 7584.3 68649 35800.9 133521 4295.8 20595 10840.5 8982 24698.4 267825 125220.1 365170 266039.8 7862.9 109387.2 902879.5 1011775 12.2 15401 8228.6 43477 39721.7 46036.3 195688 110851 216905 191082.7 5920.6 49219 29054.9 115126 89115.8 124 90260 42512.7 130585 110405.2 152745 118812 233167 82944 400215 14194 186608 1311114 1480955 1073.7 1433 747.2 4133 3365.2 2297 11219.5 129653 68511.9 108187 85899 120132 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne 2005 2009 2010 value, USD thousand 101680.2 2049.1 131008.9 98660.8 209781.6 74860 341305.5 12614 156162.3 1128122.4 1274150.4

Argentina

Brazil

Egypt

China

Morocco

Pakistan

Turkey

Uruguay

South Africa

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.20 Structure of Russia's imports of citrus (%) 2000 volume 11.7 1.1 0.1 5.6 46.2 0.0 23.2 4.4 7.6 100.0 81.6 11.1 1.1 0.1 5.9 45.6 0.0 24.5 4.3 7.5 100.0 80.8 value 15.5 0.2 10.8 5.9 23.3 1.8 31.9 2.5 8.2 100.0 92.9 2005 volume value 15.9 0.2 9.8 6.7 25.7 1.9 29.0 2.5 8.3 100.0 92.5 9.6 0.4 11.6 10.2 19.3 3.9 32.4 0.8 11.9 100.0 88.9 2009 volume value 9.5 0.4 12.2 9.9 21.2 4.4 29.5 0.9 12.1 100.0 89.2 9.2 0.2 11.7 9.1 17.8 6.3 30.5 1.1 14.2 100.0 88.5 2010 volume value 9.0 0.2 11.6 8.7 18.6 6.6 30.3 1.1 13.8 100.0 88.5

Argentina

Brazil

Egypt

China

Morocco

Pakistan

Turkey

Uruguay

South Africa

S. Kiselev, R. Romashkin ­ Possible Effects of Russia's WTO Accession on Agricultural Trade and Production

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data


Table 3.21 Russia's imports of grape 2000 volume, tonne 100 16458 13881 6630 1412 1944 40425 44867 15229.9 214760 145514.4 287254 405205.9 12091.9 170609 112242.2 226671 317850.5 803.8 8342 5907.7 11654 16424.6 594.8 29980 22830.2 40559 56634.8 50028 13358 292585 367934 2513.5 75249 53858.9 131773 183151.5 172664 2789.5 37975 17655.9 22359 34299.3 29941 5352.7 8627 3827 10533 13925.6 14452 37.6 10436 8162.5 9793 13414.7 12142 17004 18671.4 45869.8 256697.5 71904.2 20367.1 430514 553199.2 value, t USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand volume, tonne value, USD thousand 2005 2009 2010

Argentina

Afghanistan

Iran

Turkey

Chile

South Africa

Imports from developing countries

Total imports from non-CIS countries

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

Table 3.22 Structure of Russia's imports of grape (%) 2000 volume 0.2 40.7 34.3 16.4 3.5 4.8 100.0 90.1 6.6 100.0 79.4 4.9 20.8 23.1 22.3 44.1 17.6 4.9 100.0 79.4 44.3 5.1 0.3 6.1 value volume value 7.3 3.4 15.7 48.0 20.3 5.3 100.0 77.1 2005 4.3 4.6 9.9 58.1 17.9 5.1 100.0 78.9 2009 volume value 4.2 4.4 10.8 57.6 17.8 5.2 100.0 78.4 4.1 4.9 10.2 59.0 17.1 4.6 100.0 79.5 2010 volume value 3.9 4.3 10.7 59.6 16.7 4.7 100.0 77.8

Argentina

Afghanistan

Iran

Turkey

Chile

South Africa

Imports from developing countries

Share of developing countries in total imports from non-CIS countries

ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development

Source: Calculations based on RF Federal Customs Service data

66


SELECTED ICTSD ISSUE PAPERS
Agriculture Trade and Sustainable Development The Impact of US Biofuel Policies on Agricultural Price Levels and Volatility. By Bruce Babcock. Issue Paper No. 35, 2011. Risk Management in Agriculture and the Future of the EUs Common Agricultural Policy. By Stefan Tangermann. Issue Paper No. 34, 2011. Policy Solutions To Agricultural Market Volatility: A Synthesis. By Stefan Tangermann. Issue Paper No. 33, 2011. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Rice from the United States. By Eric Wailes. Issue Paper No. 32, 2011. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Rice from Thailand. By T. Dechachete. Issue Paper No. 31, 2011. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Poultry from Brazil. By H. L. Burnquist, C. C. da Costa, M. J. P. de Souza, L. M. Fassarella. Issue Paper No. 30, 2011. How Might the EUs Common Agricultural Policy Affect Trade and Development After 2013? By A. Matthews. Issue Paper No. 29, 2010. Food Security, Price Volatility and Trade: Some Reflections for Developing Countries. By Eugenio DÌaz-Bonilla and Juan Francisco Ron. Issue Paper No. 28, 2010. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Rice from Uruguay. By Carlos Perez Del Castillo and Daniela Alfaro. Issue Paper No. 27, 2010. How Would A Trade Deal On Cotton Affect Exporting And Importing Countries? By Mario Jales. Issue Paper No. 26, 2010. Simulations on the Special Safeguard Mechanism: A Look at the December Draft Agriculture Modalities. By Raul Montemayor. Issue Paper No. 25, 2010. Competitiveness and Sustainable Development The Role of International Trade, Technology and Structural Change in Shifting Labour Demands in South Africa. By H. Bhorat, C. van der Westhuizen and S.Goga. Issue Paper No. 17, 2010. Trade Integration and Labour Market Trends in India: an Unresolved Unemployment Problem. By C.P. Chandrasekhar. Issue Paper No. 16, 2010. The Impact of Trade Liberalization and the Global Economic Crisis on the Productive Sectors, Employment and Incomes in Mexico. By A. Puyana. Issue Paper No. 15, 2010. Globalization in Chile: A Positive Sum of Winners and Losers. By V. E. Tokman. Issue Paper No. 14, 2010. Practical Aspects of Border Carbon Adjustment Measures ­ Using a Trade Facilitation Perspective to Assess Trade Costs. By Sofia Persson. Issue Paper No.13, 2010. Trade, Economic Vulnerability, Resilience and the Implications of Climate Change in Small Island and Littoral Developing Economies. By Robert Read. Issue Paper No.12, 2010. The Potential Role of Non Traditional Donors Aid in Africa. By Peter Kragelund. Issue Paper No.11, 2010. Aid for Trade and Climate Change Financing Mechanisms: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for LDCs and SVEs in Africa. By Vinaye Dey Ancharaz. Issue Paper No.10, 2010. Resilience Amidst Rising Tides: An Issue Paper on Trade, Climate Change and Competitiveness in the Tourism Sector in the Caribbean. By Keron Niles. Issue Paper No. 9, 2010. Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of International Trade Conflicting Rules and Clashing Courts. The Case of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Free Trade Agreements and the WTO. By Pieter Jan Kuijper. Issue Paper No.10, 2010. Burden of Proof in WTO Dispute Settlement: Contemplating Preponderance of the Evidence. By James Headen Pfitzer and Sheila Sabune. Issue Paper No. 9, 2009. Suspension of Concessions in the Services Sector: Legal, Technical and Economic Problems. By Arthur E. Appleton. Issue Paper No. 7, 2009. Trading Profiles and Developing Country Participation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System. By Henrik Horn, Joseph Francois and Niklas Kaunitz. Issue Paper No. 6, 2009. Fisheries, International Trade and Sustainable Development The Importance of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to Fisheries Negotiations in Economic Partnership Agreements. By Martin Doherty. Issue Paper No. 7, 2008. Fisheries, Aspects of ACP-EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreements: Trade and Sustainable Development Implications. By Liam Campling. Issue Paper No. 6, 2008. Fisheries, International Trade and Sustainable Development. By ICTSD. Policy Discussion Paper, 2006. Innovation, Technology and Intellectual Property The Influence of Preferential Trade Agreements on the Implementation of Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries. By Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng and Jean-Christophe Maur. Issue Paper No. 33, 2011. Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer to Address Climate Change: Risks, Opportunities and Policy Options. By K. E. Maskus and R. L. Okediji. Issue Paper No. 32, 2010 Intellectual Property Training and Education: A Development Perspective. By Jeremy de Beer and Chidi Oguamanam. Issue Paper No. 31, 2010. An International Legal Framework for the Sharing of Pathogens: Issues and Challenges. By Frederick M. Abbott. Issue Paper No. 30, 2010. Sustainable Development In International Intellectual Property Law ­ New Approaches From EU Economic Partnership Agreements? By Henning Grosse Ruse ­ Khan. Issue Paper No. 29, 2010. Trade in Services and Sustainable Development Facilitating Temporary Labour Mobility in African Least-Developed Countries: Addressing Mode 4 Supply-Side Constraints. By Sabrina Varma. Issue Paper No.10, 2009. Advancing Services Export Interests of Least-Developed Countries: Towards GATS Commitments on the Temporary Movement of natural Persons for the Supply of Low-Skilled and Semi-Skilled Services. By Daniel Crosby, Issue Paper No. 9, 2009. Maritime Transport and Related Logistics Services in Egypt. By Ahmed F. Ghoneim, and Omneia A. Helmy. Issue Paper No. 8, 2007. Environmental Goods and Services Programme Harmonising Energy Efficiency Requirements ­ Building Foundations for Co-operative Action. By Rod Janssen. Issue Paper No. 14, 2010 Climate-related single-use environmental goods. By Rene Vossenaar. Issue Paper No.13, 2010. Technology Mapping of the Renewable Energy, Buildings, and transport Sectors: Policy Drivers and International Trade Aspects: An ICTSD Synthesis Paper. By Renee Vossenaar and Veena Jha. Issue Paper No.12, 2010. Trade and Sustainable Energy International Transport, Climate Change and Trade: What are the Options for Regulating Emissions from Aviation and Shipping and what will be their Impact on Trade? By Joachim Monkelbaan. Background Paper, 2010. Climate Change and Trade on the Road to Copenhagen. Policy Discussion Paper, 2009. Trade, Climate Change and Global Competitiveness: Opportunities and Challenge for Sustainable Development in China and Beyond. By ICTSD. Selected Issue Briefs No. 3, 2008. Intellectual Property and Access to Clean Energy Technologies in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic, Biofuel and Wind Technologies. By John H. Barton. Issue Paper No. 2, 2007. Regionalism and EPAs Questions Juridiques et SystÈmiques Dans les Accords de Partenariat Èconomique : Quelle Voie Suivre Þ PrÈsent ? By Cosmas Milton Obote Ochieng. Issue Paper No. 8, 2010. Rules of Origin in EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements. By Eckart Naumann. Issue Paper No. 7, 2010 SPS and TBT in the EPAs between the EU and the ACP Countries. By Denise PrÈvost. Issue Paper No. 6, 2010. Los acuerdos comerciales y su relaciÑn con las normas laborales: Estado actual del arte. By Pablo Lazo Grandi. Issue Paper No. 5, 2010. Revisiting Regional Trade Agreements and their Impact on Services and Trade. By Mario Marconini. Issue Paper No. 4, 2010. Trade Agreements and their Relation to Labour Standards: The Current Situation. By Pablo Lazo Grandi. Issue Paper No. 3, 2009. Global Economic Policy and Institutions The Microcosm of Climate Change Negotiations: What Can the World Learn from the European Union? By HÅkan NordstrÆm, Issue Paper No. 1, 2009. These and other ICTSD resources are available at http://www.ictsd.org


www.ictsd.org
ICTSD's Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development aims to promote food security, equity and environmental sustainability in agricultural trade. Publications include: · · · · · · · · · · Post-2013 EU Common Agricultural Policy, Trade and Development: A Review of Legislative Proposals. By Alan Matthews. Issue paper No. 39, 2011. Improving the International Governance of Food Security and Trade. By Manzoor Ahmad. Issue Paper No. 38, 2011. Food Reserves in Developing Countries: Trade Policy Options for Improved Food Security. By C. L. Gilbert, Issue Paper No. 37, 2011. Global Food Stamps: An Idea Worth Considering? By Tim Josling, Issue Paper No. 36, 2011. Risk Management in Agriculture and the Future of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. By Stefan Tangermann, Issue Paper No. 34, 2011. Policy Solutions To Agricultural Market Volatility: A Synthesis. By Stefan Tangermann, Issue Paper No. 33, 2011. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Rice from the United States. By Eric Wailes. Issue Paper No. 32, 2011. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Rice from Thailand. By T. Dechachete. Issue Paper No. 31, 2011. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Poultry from Brazil. By H. L. Burnquist, C. C. da Costa, M. J. P. de Souza, L. M. Fassarella. Issue Paper No. 30, 2011. How Might the EU's Common Agricultural Policy Affect Trade and Development After 2013? An Analysis of the European Commission's November 2010 Communication. By Alan Matthews. Issue Paper No. 29, 2010. Food Security, Price Volatility and Trade: Some Reflections for Developing Countries. By Eugenio DÌaz-Bonilla and Juan Francisco Ron. Issue Paper No. 28, 2010. Composite Index of Market Access for the Export of Rice from Uruguay. By Carlos Perez Del Castillo and Daniela Alfaro. Issue Paper No. 27, 2010. How Would A Trade Deal On Cotton Affect Exporting And Importing Countries? By Mario Jales. Issue Paper No. 26, 2010. Simulations on the Special Safeguard Mechanism: A Look at the December 2008 Draft Agriculture Modalities. By Raul Montemayor. Issue Paper No. 25, 2010. How Would a Trade Deal on Sugar Affect Exporting and Importing Countries? By Amani Elobeid. Issue Paper No. 24, 2009. Constructing a Composite Index of Market Acess. By Tim Josling. Issue Paper No. 23, 2009. Comparing safeguard measures in regional and bilateral agreements. By Paul Kruger, Willemien Denner and JB Cronje. Issue Paper No. 22, 2009. How would a WTO agreement on bananas affect exporting and importing countries? By Giovanni Anania. Issue Paper No. 21, 2009. Biofuels Subsidies and the Law of the World Trade Organisation. By Toni Harmer. Issue Paper No. 20, 2009. Biofuels Certification and the Law of the World Trade Organisation. By Marsha A. Echols. Issue Paper No. 19, 2009.

· · · · · · · · · ·

About the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, www.ictsd.org Founded in 1996, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is an independent think-and-do-tank based in Geneva, Switzerland and with operations throughout the world. Out-posted staff in Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Senegal, Canada, Russia, and China. By enabling stakeholders in trade policy through information, networking, dialogue, well-targeted research and capacity-building, ICTSD aims to influence the international trade system so that it advances the goal of sustainable development. ICTSD co-implements all of its programme through partners and a global network of hundreds of scholars, researchers, NGOs, policymakers and think-tanks around the world.